Company Commander reportedly said 'I was pressured' in front of 94 lieutenants

Deniz Demirtaş, one of the lieutenants dismissed from the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) for crossing swords and reciting the Officer's Oath—declaring “We are the soldiers of Mustafa Kemal”—during a celebration held among themselves after the Military Academy graduation ceremony, has filed a lawsuit for the cancellation of his dismissal. It is noteworthy that in Lieutenant Demirtaş's petition, the testimony of an Artillery First Lieutenant, whose name is disclosed for the first time, is included, stating: “In a speech he gave in front of 94 lieutenants, the Artillery School Company Commander said that he was pressured to change his opinion.”

In the third lawsuit filed following those of Serhat Gündar and Batuhan Gazi Kılıç, two of the 5 lieutenants whose dismissal from the TSK was decided as of February 3, their lawyers stated that Deniz Demirtaş was not involved in the applications made to recite the Officer's Oath. They further noted that he was not present at the July 20 roll call where the battalion commander said, “The proposal was not accepted,” and that after attending a portion of the traditional entertainment held on the evening of August 29, he returned to his barracks and watched a match. They asserted that Lieutenant Talip İzzet Akarsu did not speak to him about Lieutenant Ebru Eroğlu wanting to recite the Officer's Oath, and that he only learned the content of the message written by Akarsu by reading it in the WhatsApp Group. Regarding the ceremony on August 30, they explained: “Demirtaş could not enter the ceremony area immediately due to the security measures taken; while waiting to enter, he called his girlfriend. After entering, he first met with his family and had a souvenir photo taken. Later, seeing his fellow classmates gathering, he joined the traditional sword-crossing activity and the recitation of the officer's oath, and since he was outside the circle, he did not hear exactly what was said.”

How Was a Lieutenant Supposed to Stop the Lieutenants?

Stating that it is intellectually and legally impossible to accept that Deniz Demirtaş was involved in this planning, the lawyers also drew attention to the following:

“It is claimed that the client was involved in the planning of the message sent on one hand, supported it on the other, and failed to prevent the recitation of the oath on the third. These accusations create contradictions within themselves. Because the legal consequences of the alleged accusations are very different from each other. This fact alone is the greatest indicator of how carelessly the disciplinary investigation was conducted and that the investigation was carried out with a ‘I did it, it's done’ mentality. The client was again placed in a guilty position on the grounds that he did not prevent the recitation of the oath. However, it should not be forgotten that the client himself graduated on August 30, 2024. In this case, as he is a newly graduated lieutenant like his other classmates, it should not be forgotten that it would be out of the question for him to stop his own classmates; without meaning to accept it, if such a duty were in question, it should have been fulfilled by the platoon/company and battalion commanders on duty at the Military Academy at that time. Expecting this from a newly graduated lieutenant, given his position, would be, to put it simply, absurd.”

The First Lieutenant's Testimony

As is known, during the dismissal process, lawyers alleged that the lieutenants' commanders were pressured to change their opinions and that the Polatlı Artillery School Company Commander had declared this in front of the lieutenants, filing a criminal complaint. However, the Supreme Court of Appeals Chief Public Prosecutor's Office found the allegations to be “abstract and general” and decided not to process the criminal complaint.

In the lawsuit filed regarding Deniz Demirtaş, it is emphasized for the first time, by naming Artillery First Lieutenant Ş. B. P. as a witness, that the Company Commander explicitly stated in a speech in front of 94 lieutenants that he was pressured to change his opinion. The significance of this was explained as follows:

“Superior opinions are important in terms of the ongoing disciplinary investigation. Because if the superior opinions are not in the form of ‘it is appropriate to be tried by the High Disciplinary Board (YDK),’ it is not possible to send the disciplinary investigation file to the YDK via the superior opinion method. If the superior opinions are not in the form of ‘it is appropriate to impose a separation penalty,’ instead of returning the file for the opinions to be corrected in this direction, the preferences of the superiors should be respected—without meaning to accept the accusation—and if the conditions are met, another penalty should have been imposed by their superiors. Changing opinions through pressure is both a crime and a procedural violation of the law.”

Müyesser YILDIZ

March 4, 2025