The general did not attend the hearing and requested a private session... A phone call came to the witness...

The trial process has begun in the dispute between General D.A., the Garrison Commander of one of our major provinces, and Major E.Ş., who serves under his command. But what a beginning!..

First, let us summarize the incident for those who have not read our previous articles on the subject.

General D.A., who is also the commander of an important Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) training center in the province where he is stationed, initiated both a disciplinary investigation against Major E.Ş. and filed a criminal complaint with the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office, alleging "threatening and insulting a superior officer," due to certain posts he made without naming names.

As a result of the disciplinary investigation, which was conducted entirely based on the indictment prepared by the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office, the High Disciplinary Board of the Land Forces Command decided to dismiss Major E.Ş. from the TSK, while the following curiosities occurred during the criminal trial process:

General D.A. applied to the Family Court under the "Law on the Protection of Family and Prevention of Violence Against Women," and obtained a decision for Major E.Ş. to "not approach his residence, workplace, relatives, and children, and not disturb them via communication devices or in any other way" for a period of 2 months...

Furthermore, he requested a "press/publication ban and a confidentiality order" for the criminal case filed against E.Ş., "due to the negative effects it would create in society because he is a general." However, this request was not accepted...

The first hearing of the case filed by General D.A. against Major E.Ş. was held last week in the province where D.A. serves as the Garrison and Training Commander.

"INTENSE WORKLOAD" JUSTIFICATION

Let us report what happened from the minutes.

The complainant, General D.A., did not attend the hearing. His lawyer stated that the General could not attend the hearing due to his "intense workload" and submitted to the Court the letter sent to them by the Personnel Department of the Land Forces Command, stating that Major E.Ş. had been dismissed from the TSK.

The defendant, E.Ş., repeated his statements from the investigation phase and noted that General D.A. had slandered him regarding the posts he made, that he had filed a criminal complaint for this reason, but that this complaint was not included in the indictment. In the meantime, he also recounted what General D.A. said about the personnel under his command and their spouses, as well as about Erdoğan and his family and former Minister of National Defense Hulusi Akar, and these were recorded in the minutes.

Following the completion of E.Ş.'s statement, his lawyers, Serdar Öztürk and İbrahim Yılmaz, stated that Lieutenant Colonel S.T., who witnessed what General D.A. said and did, was present outside the courtroom and requested that he be heard.

The prosecutor said, "The discretion regarding the hearing of the witness belongs to the Court." However, the Court decided that "there is no room for S.T. to be heard at this stage," and the trial continued.

İbrahim Yılmaz, one of the lawyers for the defendant E.Ş., reacted to this decision of the Court with the words, "According to the law, we have the right to prove the allegation. For this reason, we wanted to have the witness heard. The Court has decided to reject it in violation of the law."

Lawyer Serdar Öztürk also spoke as follows:

"The fact that the complainant makes statements about himself in private conversations, with words that amount to insults and even threats against the President and his family behind the scenes of these issues, shows that there is a problem with the complainant's character. He is someone who graduated from the Military Academy in '91 and, although his retirement was on the agenda in 2013, was made a General despite it being known that he lacked merit, taking into account his stance and injury during the coup attempt. He has ruined his unit and his personnel. He is experiencing these types of events because he lacks leadership qualities. We want the complainant to be present. We will have questions within the scope of the constitutional right to defense."

CURIOSITY FOR A PRIVATE SESSION

Before moving on to the statements of General D.A.'s lawyer, let us remind you of this.

It is known that in the July 15 coup trials, many commanders, primarily the Chief of General Staff of the period, Hulusi Akar, and the Second Chief, Yaşar Güler, were heard in private sessions, not in hearings where the defendants and lawyers were present.

And so, General D.A.'s lawyer, after saying, "We are the complainants, we want to join the case," requested that his client be heard "without a set date due to his work."

After the statements were completed, the Prosecutor gave an opinion that General D.A.'s request to join should be decided after he is heard.

The Court made a decision in the same direction and ordered that the new hearing date and time be notified to General D.A., adjourning the hearing to November.

WHO CALLED THE WITNESS AFTER THE HEARING?

The first session ended like this, but other things happened along with it.

The lawyers of E.Ş. described what happened in the petition they sent to the Court after the hearing:

"Our witness S.T., whose name is mentioned many times in the indictment and whom we had ready at the court, was assigned to another province with the 2025 appointments. Although we requested many times that the witness be heard by your Court, stating that he should be heard before he leaves here, that he could only be heard by instruction after he leaves, and that this situation would constitute a violation of the 'principle of directness of evidence,' our request was rejected and the witness who was ready at the hearing was not heard. It is against the law that our witness, who was ready at the door, was not heard. Our witness, who serves as a subordinate to the person who is the highest commander of a military unit where it is known by everyone that military hierarchy is applied very strictly and who is alleged to be the complainant, has unfortunately become a target as we predicted. After the hearing ended, Colonel S.M., the superior of S.T., who no military official knew had come to the hearing as a witness, called him on his cell phone and made statements such as, 'Lieutenant Colonel S..., did you go to court today? What's up, were you going to say something?' Every soldier knows that these expressions are a veiled threat and that the person behind it is the one who is alleged to be the complainant and who unfortunately holds the rank of lieutenant general. Therefore, it is understood from this call that our witness S.T. will be subjected to systematic pressure by the complainant and the officers under his command so that he does not testify. Unfortunately, after this call, our witness began to fear what would happen to him because he is still under the command of the person who is alleged to be the complainant. In other words, the complainant achieved his desired goal as a result of this call, which means a veiled threat."

Following these allegations, the lawyers requested that a writ be written to the relevant operators regarding the call records in question, and that Colonel S.M. be heard as a witness and asked "how he learned that S.T. came to court, for what purpose he called, and whether he spoke with General D.A. via military line or cell phone before calling S.T."

The lawyers, who also stated that they filed a complaint against Colonel S.M. for the crime of attempting to influence the judicial process, objected to General D.A.'s request to be heard in a private session as follows:

"This request is a violation of the constitutional right to defense for the defendant. The fact that the complainant D.A. even requests to be heard in an environment where the defendant and his lawyers are not present is a clear expression that he is afraid of presenting his unrealistic claims in an environment open to everyone. To express it as a form of criticism, we think that someone who has time to leave his work and business, follow people's WhatsApp statuses like an adolescent, and make posts in response to them in his own way, and deal with such empty things, will have plenty of time to come to court. In this respect, we request that the person's request to be heard without a set date be rejected and a decision for forced attendance be issued."

Finally, the lawyers pointed out that General D.A.'s intimacy with the Chief Public Prosecutor is known by everyone, and requested that if D.A. attempts to put pressure and influence on the Court by using these relationships, minutes should be drawn up and sent to the Council of Judges and Prosecutors (HSK).

We will continue to follow this interesting case...

Müyesser YILDIZ

July 3, 2025