In the trial of the lieutenants' commander, the court asked the Ministry of National Defense: 'What is the basis for the finding that the reputation of the TSK was damaged?'

In the lawsuit filed by Alper Topsakal, the acting Regiment Commander of the Military Academy at the time, for the cancellation and stay of execution of his dismissal from the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) on the grounds that he did not prevent the lieutenants from reciting the "Officer's Oath" and saying "We are the soldiers of Mustafa Kemal" after their graduation ceremony, the same procedure applied to the lieutenants was followed, and Topsakal's request was rejected by a majority vote. One member, who argued that the accusations directed by the Ministry of National Defense (MSB) consisted of "abstract findings and assumptions," wrote a 7-page dissenting opinion. Meanwhile, it emerged that before the decision, the Court asked the MSB what the finding that "the reputation of the TSK was damaged," which was presented as the justification for the dismissal, was based on, and the MSB replied, "As a result of the incident, the TSK was discussed for days on social media, in print and visual media, and by polarizing society, it caused damage to the reputation of the TSK and the State."

As is known, on January 16, lieutenants Ebru Eroğlu, Talip İzzet Akarsu, Batuhan Gazi Kılıç, Serhat Gündar, and Deniz Demirtaş were dismissed from the TSK by the High Disciplinary Board of the Land Forces Command, and their commanders, Acting Regiment Commander Colonel Alper Topsakal, Battalion Commander Staff Lieutenant Colonel Halit Türkoğlu, and Company Commander Major Murat Öztürk, were dismissed by the High Disciplinary Board of the MSB.

We have discussed the accusations directed at the lieutenants, their defenses, and the stay of execution and cancellation lawsuits they filed in detail. However, the accusations directed at the commanders and the defenses they made against them have not been on the agenda much.

It is through the lawsuit filed by the then-Acting Regiment Commander Colonel Alper Topsakal and his lawyer Cengiz Demirtaş in the administrative court for the stay of execution and cancellation of the dismissal that we have learned about the accusations directed at the commanders.

7 ACCUSATIONS, 7 ANSWERS

Let us explain them in order and summarize.

The Ministry of National Defense directed the following 7 accusations at Colonel Topsakal:

- He received reports that the cadets would attempt to recite an unauthorized oath during or after the ceremony, but he did not grasp the importance of the matter and did not take precautions...

- He did not perform the necessary planning, follow-up, and control regarding the activities to be carried out after the ceremony parade...

- He left the phase after the ceremony to the initiative of Battalion Commander Staff Lieutenant Colonel Halit Türkoğlu and did not follow it up...

- He did not fulfill his duty to prevent or suppress indiscipline or to submit the matter to the authorized authorities for necessary action...

- Although he knew of his subordinates' intention to commit an act of indiscipline, he did not take the necessary and reasonable measures to prevent them, and he refrained from assuming the responsibility required by the duties entrusted to him...

PREVENTING LIEUTENANTS WITH OFFICER REINFORCEMENTS?

Two other accusations worth underlining are as follows:

- He did not report the situation to the School Commander, the first superior who could take effective and necessary measures regarding the undisciplined actions of the graduated lieutenants and who was capable of providing officer reinforcements between campuses if necessary...

- He prevented the School Commander and, consequently, the Rector from being aware of such a request and intention and from taking measures...

What we understand is that if the School Commander and the Rector had been informed, the lieutenants would have been stopped by officers sent to the field!..

After all this, the MSB High Disciplinary Board concluded that Colonel Topsakal was "individually and equally responsible" for the lieutenants' "attitudes and behaviors that damaged the reputation of the State and the TSK and their serious indiscipline," and decided to dismiss him from the TSK.

Ultimately, the MSB stated in the defense it sent to the Court with this detail that there was no "illegality" in the dismissal process and requested that the lawsuit filed by Topsakal be rejected.

Let us move on to the defense made by Colonel Topsakal and his lawyer Demirtaş against those accusations. They gave the following answers under main headings:

- He did not receive any reports that the cadets would attempt to recite an unauthorized oath. The statement of Deputy Dean Assoc. Prof. Dr. Arif Sarı is untrue.

- Not only 7 times, but not even once was an application made to the Regiment Command office regarding this matter...

- He learned that the graduated lieutenants' request to recite the oath was made to the company commander, evaluated by the battalion commander, and rejected. Other than this, the matter was in no way conveyed to him directly or indirectly...

- "The publication date of the ceremony order is July 31, 2024, and the date he was assigned to the Student Regiment Command is August 16, 2024. Therefore, the person who should have written the order is the regiment commander who was in office at that time...

- Since there has never been a situation in the past where the post-ceremony period was planned very strictly, it is baseless and unfair to expect a special planning unique to this year and to impose responsibility because it was not done...

- There is no statement confirming the accusation of preventing measures from being taken by not reporting to the School Commander and the Rector...

- Being held “individually and equally responsible” for the actions of subordinates is an interpretation that has never been seen before and has no basis in any legal text...

THE COURT'S QUESTIONS, THE MSB'S ANSWERS

There is another remarkable section in Colonel Topsakal's case file. Before making its decision, the Court asked the MSB various questions with an interim decision it took on April 9, and the MSB answered them.

Here are those questions and the answers given:

Question: "Did the lieutenants personally apply to the Acting Commander of the Military Academy regarding the request to recite the oath? If they did, what actions did the Acting Commander take? Was this matter investigated during the disciplinary investigation?"

Answer: "The graduated lieutenants requested to recite the oath 7 times at different times, but none of them were made personally and directly to the Acting Commander. The Acting Commander became aware of this request during an order given by Staff Lieutenant Colonel Halit Türkoğlu to the battalion on one of the dates of August 17-18 during the ceremony rehearsals at the stadium, stating that the recitation of the oath via microphone was not in accordance with the regulations and therefore would absolutely not be recited, and he approved it."

Question: "How was it accepted that the Acting Commander could have known that the lieutenants would recite the mentioned oath despite the rejection decisions given? Is there a witness statement?"

Answer: "Given his rank, experience, and the office he represents, he should have foreseen that such an act of indiscipline could be committed."

Question: "To whom does the authority and duty to make plans regarding the post-ceremony period belong? Is there any planning regarding the post-ceremony period in the duty orders titled 'Diploma and Flag Handover Ceremony'?"

Answer: "Considering that he is responsible for the preparation and participation in ceremonies in accordance with Article 18 of the Military Academies Regulation, he is responsible for not planning matters not included in the ceremony order, for not giving orders to his subordinates regarding the execution of the ceremony and post-ceremony activities, and for not taking the necessary measures regarding them."

Question: "On what basis was the assumption made that he knew of his subordinates' intention to commit an act of indiscipline and did not take the necessary and reasonable measures to prevent these acts of indiscipline?"

Answer: "The plaintiff is also aware of the disruptive actions that occurred in front of the Mehmetçik Site on the night of August 29, 2024, which exceeded the limits of celebration and reached the level of unrest. The fact that the lieutenants persistently carried the recitation of the oath to other commanders despite the first order is a major indication that they would carry out this act. For this reason, he should have known that the act would take place and taken precautions."

Question: "Is the Acting Regiment Commander burdened with a responsibility by regulation to inform or convey to his superiors regarding every request, suggestion, or demand coming from his subordinates?"

Answer: "Despite the negative answers to the lieutenants' previous persistent requests, following the incident that occurred on the evening of August 29, 2024, the plaintiff should have accepted that the matter was not resolved within his own authority and informed his superiors who could take precautions. By not doing so, he caused the indiscipline that occurred, and prevented the School Commander and the Rector, who could take the necessary measures and were capable of providing personnel reinforcements between campuses if necessary, from being informed of the request in time, from informing the requesters, and from taking measures against possible wrong actions based on the persistent requests in this regard."

''AN IMPORTANT CEREMONY THAT OUR STATE'S HIGHEST AUTHORITY WILL ATTEND''

And the famous final question: "On what basis were the findings that the TSK's reputation was damaged and worn out, which were stated as the justification for the dismissal, made, and how and in what way was the inference made that the Acting Commander, by not displaying the attitude/behavior required by the position he held, laid the groundwork for baseless slanders to be cast upon the TSK and for the TSK to be discussed and worn out in the public eye for a long time?"

Answer: "As a result of the incident that occurred because the plaintiff did not make any attempt to take measures within his authority to prevent the indiscipline that might occur at such an important ceremony that our State's highest authority would attend, and did not inform his superiors who could take measures, the TSK was discussed for days on social media, in print and visual media, and by polarizing society, it caused damage to the reputation of the TSK and the State."

10-LINE DECISION, 7-PAGE DISSENTING OPINION

As for the Administrative Court's decision;

Just like in the lawsuits filed by the lieutenants; it was stated that "a stay of execution will be decided if the conditions of the occurrence of damages that are difficult or impossible to compensate and the act being clearly contrary to the law are realized together," and since these conditions were not met, Colonel Topsakal's request was rejected by a majority vote.

The member who did not agree with this decision wrote a 7-page dissenting opinion. Evaluating the information and documents in the file and the answers given by the MSB to the questions asked by the Court as a whole, the member reached the following conclusions in summary:

- The accusation that he did not take precautions despite knowing about the lieutenants' request remained at the level of an allegation... It cannot be expected that he would know that the lieutenants would recite the mentioned oath after the rejection decisions were given... There is no concrete report or indication that this oath would be recited at the ceremony or after the ceremony. The issues put forward by the MSB are based on assumptions and consist of abstract findings.

- The graduated lieutenants recited the mentioned oath after the official part of the ceremony ended and the protocol departed... Just as there is no order regarding the post-ceremony period in the duty orders, it is seen that the Support Services Command is responsible for and assigned to ensure security, order, and discipline within the stadium, which is the place where the oath was recited. Therefore, a duty or responsibility of the Acting School Commander cannot be mentioned at this stage... On the other hand, in clause b of Article 13 of the Administrative Investigation Report, titled 'Suggestions to avoid encountering similar events', it is stated that "necessary measures should be taken to ensure that lieutenants do not return to the field and engage in similar behaviors after the ceremony parade is completed and they leave the stadium," indicating that the post-ceremony period was not planned with duty orders, and the Acting School Commander cannot be held responsible for a situation that was not planned, that occurred in the stadium, and for which responsibility for security and order in the stadium was given to another unit.

- In the investigation report, it is stated that it could not be understood from the security camera recordings what the graduated lieutenants said during the incident that occurred in front of the Mehmetçik Site on the night of August 29, 2024, and that a matter regarding the recitation of the oath could not be determined. Therefore, since it cannot be expected of the Acting Regiment Commander to know that the act of reciting the oath would take place based on these actions and to take precautions, the mentioned accusation has not been proven.

- The plaintiff was appointed as Acting School Commander on August 16 and did not participate in the preparation of the graduation ceremony program held on August 30. The act of reciting the oath took place in the period after the official part of the mentioned ceremony ended and the protocol departed. The official part of the ceremony was carried out without any problems, and the orders and duties given regarding this part were fulfilled. There is no finding that the plaintiff acted faultily regarding the execution of the ceremony and this part.

''THE CLAIM THAT THE TSK'S REPUTATION WAS DAMAGED IS SUBJECTIVE''

Emphasizing in the dissenting opinion that "no one can be held legally responsible for an act they did not commit" and that there is no regulation in the legal legislation regarding "being equally and equivalently responsible for the acts of subordinates," the member judge also made the following striking assessment regarding the MSB's claim that "the reputation of the TSK was damaged":

“The assumption that the discussion of the incident in question on social media or visual and auditory media will further increase the negative effect of the alleged act is inconsistent with legal logic. Law is concerned with the act alleged to have been committed and the sanction applied in return for this act; other than that, the fact that acts alleged to have been committed are featured excessively in the media does not increase the effect and importance of the act; in short, the evaluation of the legal situation of the act at the moment it was committed and whether the sanction applied accordingly is in accordance with the law is what matters. For this reason; it is concluded that the claim that the plaintiff damaged the reputation of the TSK due to the lieutenants' recitation of the mentioned oath contains subjective evaluations, that it cannot be said that the act itself shook the reputation of the TSK, because a portion of writers/articles/news channels/social media accounts in the media can put forward opposing, contradictory articles, opinions, and ideas, therefore it cannot be said that the reputation of the TSK was shaken due to its presence in the media because of the mentioned incident, and there is no possibility of accepting that the alleged act caused this result.”

Müyesser YILDIZ

June 6, 2025