This is the kind of 'Rule of Law' Turkey has!...

Whenever our officials say at every opportunity, “The Republic of Turkey is a state governed by the rule of law,” everyone inevitably breaks into laughter. There is no need to explain the “why” at length; despite this theoretical and categorical statement, the practices in reality are known to almost all of us.

However, I must recount what happened in a case I followed for two days this week, which has been ongoing for 9 years.

The case is the “umbrella case” regarding the civilian wing of “FETÖ,” the investigation of which began in 2015, the indictment of which was prepared 1 month before the July 15 coup attempt, and the trial of which began 4 months after July 15.

Although there were 73 people in this file where Fetullah Gülen is number 1, only 7 defendants were tried. Because the others had already fled.

How, you ask? The pro-government media first exposed the “city imams.” Then, Erdoğan himself said, “The city imams in Turkey were announced and they all fled at once. Soon, perhaps the imams of countries will be announced. Let’s see what will happen in the international community.” Indeed, a few days later, the pro-government media again published those imams with their names and photos. After these publications, of course, they fled too.

The most striking event in the umbrella case was the revelation that Adil Öksüz, who is alleged to have organized the July 15 coup, was not even called to the police station to give a statement, even though his identity was determined during the investigation process.

Let’s return to the 7 defendants at hand: Former AKP deputy İlhan İşbilen, former Samanyolu Broadcasting Group President Hidayet Karaca, one of the founders of Zaman Newspaper Alaeddin Kaya, Fetullah Gülen’s cousin Kazım Avcı, lawyers Abdülkadir Aksoy and Ali Çelik, and the Uzbek-origin businessman Dilaver Azim.

The common point of the defendants other than Alaeddin Kaya was that they had been arrested long before July 15. Kaya, for whom an arrest warrant was issued within the scope of the same file, was detained and arrested at his home in Edremit after July 15.

WHEN ACCUSED OF A COUP WHILE IN PRISON

At the end of the trial, which lasted about 2 years at the Ankara 4th High Criminal Court, İlhan İşbilen, Hidayet Karaca, Alaeddin Kaya, and Kazım Avcı were sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment for the crime of “violating the Constitution,” while the other three defendants were sentenced to 10 years and 6 months each for membership in an “armed terrorist organization.”

While the decisions were upheld by the Court of Appeal, the 3rd Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals overturned the aggravated life sentences given to the 4 defendants in June 2022.

In the justification for the reversal, it was recalled that the defendants were in prison during the July 15 coup attempt, and it was stated, “It has not been proven that they took part in the planning, preparation, and execution organization of the FETÖ/PDY armed terrorist organization aimed at abolishing the constitutional order,” and it was emphasized that the actions of the names in question should be evaluated within the scope of the crime of “managing an armed terrorist organization.”

The file returned to the Ankara 4th High Criminal Court. At the beginning of the retrial held in November 2022, the Prosecutor requested compliance with the Supreme Court’s reversal decree. However, the Court surprisingly decided to resist and sentenced the defendants to aggravated life imprisonment again.

Following this development, the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Supreme Court of Appeals sent the file to the General Assembly of Criminal Chambers of the Supreme Court of Appeals with a notification letter recommending “reversal.” The General Assembly of Criminal Chambers also unanimously decided to reverse the decision on procedural grounds in April 2025. The reason was explained as “the verdict being rendered without the public prosecutor’s opinion on the merits being obtained in accordance with the procedure, and this resulting in the restriction of the defendants’ right to defense.”

THE PROSECUTOR CHANGED HIS OPINION IN THE SECOND TRIAL

After that reversal, the file came to the Ankara 4th High Criminal Court again. In the hearings that started in June, the Prosecutor this time submitted an opinion in the direction of resisting the reversal decision of the 3rd Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals. Defenses against that opinion on the merits were also taken during the past week.

However, one of the defendants, Alaeddin Kaya, did not make a defense; he could not. The reason is as follows:

Because he was not in good health, he wanted to come to the courtroom instead of connecting via SEGBİS (Audio and Visual Information System). However, due to his back ailment, he requested to be brought by an ambulance instead of a prison vehicle. Since the Court did not take any positive or negative decision regarding this request, Kaya could not attend the hearings.

While defendants Hidayet Karaca from Silivri Prison and Kazım Avcı from Sincan Prison were making their defenses via SEGBİS, only former AKP deputy İlhan İşbilen came to the courtroom.

On Wednesday, while Hidayet Karaca was making his defense, 80-year-old İlhan İşbilen fell ill. Medical personnel were called. After the checks, İşbilen was asked if he wanted to go to the hospital. If he was not going to go, he was asked to sign a waiver. İşbilen and his lawyers said, “We cannot know his condition. If he needs to be taken to the hospital, you are the ones who will make the decision.” After long discussions, the matter was conveyed to the Presiding Judge. The Judge asked İşbilen if he wanted to go to the hospital. When İşbilen said, “I had two strokes in prison. I don’t trust the equipment here,” the Judge approved his going to the hospital.

DEFENSE FROM KARACA WITH AKP NAMES

Let us quote some parts from the defense Hidayet Karaca made that day. In summary, he said the following:

“I did not work as an imam or muezzin; I worked as a journalist. The Prime Minister of the period Erdoğan, President Abdullah Gül, Parliament Speaker Köksal Toptan, Binali Yıldırım, and Ali Babacan were guests on the programs I made. If I were a member of a terrorist organization, would they have participated? Was the channel carrying out the activities of a terrorist organization at that time? Prof. Mustafa Şentop was also a programmer on television. Therefore, terrorist organization propaganda was not made. It is not a crime for them; is my brother, my wife, my father-in-law guilty that I am asked, ‘Why did you meet with Hidayet Karaca?’ I did not want to be the President of the Television Broadcasters Association. Until that day, the president was Nuri Çolakoğlu. Egemen Bağış came and said, ‘Brother, we want you to be.’ The Supreme Court says, ‘These men were inside on July 15. They have no executive actions.’ Did I execute these actions from prison?”

When Karaca noted that one of the secret witnesses who testified against them was sentenced to 25 years in prison for sexual assault crimes, that İlhan İşbilen was acquitted of this witness’s accusations, and that the same person was the subject of news for using the name of AKP spokesperson Ömer Çelik, the Presiding Judge replied, “Okay, the secret witness is a lying witness. It is understood.”

BÜLENT ARINÇ VISITED

İlhan İşbilen, who made his defense the day before, reminded that he had been in prison for 10 years and answered the accusations against him as follows:

“After the reversal decision of the 3rd Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals, the Prosecutor requested compliance with the decree. Now he says, ‘Resist.’ Is there any new, different evidence that he changed his opinion? Let him explain what he found, what he saw that made him change his opinion. My professional activities from 40 years ago, my activities within the scope of legislative immunity are being questioned. I joined the AK Party upon the invitation made by Erdoğan through Sema Ramazanoğlu. A eulogy has been made that I was the political wing of the organization regarding my deputyship. I say call Sema Ramazanoğlu, you don’t call her. My political expectations were not met, the promises made were not kept, I left as I entered with my own will. Ertuğrul Günay, İdris Naim Şahin, and Sadullah Ergin also resigned. In the past, I stayed in the same house as Bülent Arınç in Manisa. He came to visit me 3-4 months ago. There is a nonsensical claim that I was the first general manager of Zaman Newspaper. I am the fourth manager. I worked for about 2 years in 1989. I was never a founder, administrator, or shareholder. I established an Advisory Board at that time. On the board were the late Prof. Sabahattin Zaim, Nevzat Yalçıntaş, and Ali Coşkun, as well as Hayrettin Karaman and Fehmi Koru. You can call the living ones and ask. If I am an organization member, what will be the situation of these people? Are these people also terrorists? Having a yellow press card has been made the basis of the coup. Does the prosecutor think a press card is some kind of rifle? The claim that I am the founder of Bank Asya is a lie and slander. I only bought 6 percent of the shares for investment purposes and served as an auditor. I withdrew from this sector in 2004. How have I disrupted the constitutional order with this? I don’t even need to say who carried out the opening of the bank. Where are the other people related to the bank? I want to see them here too. The last general manager of Bank Asya, Ali Fuat Taşkesenlioğlu, became the General Manager of Halk Bank after December 17/25, and later the Chairman of the Capital Markets Board. But I am kept as a traitor because of my share and auditor duty from 25 years ago. The owner of A101 was also at Bank Asya. I am being held accountable for a money transfer he made on his own, but he didn’t even undergo an investigation. MASAK (Financial Crimes Investigation Board) could not find a single cent of suspicious money transfer in my records. There are more than 70 names in this file. Since we were a big organization, is there any evidence that I engaged in organizational activity with the others? None of us have phone conversations with each other, no accommodation in the same place, we don’t know each other. There is an umbrella, but the tiles don’t know about each other.”

İşbilen stated that he was also made a defendant with the same accusations in the Match-Fixing case, that he was eventually acquitted last year, and that the ECHR had issued a violation decision regarding him, and then said, “It is as if a parallel law is being applied outside the TCK (Turkish Penal Code) and CMK (Criminal Procedure Code). What else do I need to do to be released? There is nothing left to do, though.”

CONCLUSION

After the defendants’ defenses, the lawyers asked for additional time when asked for their statements; however, the Presiding Judge rejected the request for additional time, “issuing a warning that they would be deemed to have waived their right to defense.”

Upon the lawyers stating that they could not make a defense under these conditions, the Presiding Judge took the defendants’ final words.

While Hidayet Karaca said, “If it weren’t for the cursed July 15, would we be tried like this, would such decisions come out?” Kazım Avcı said, “I am innocent. May God curse the organization. Do not apply enemy law. I am not an enemy of this country, of you, of anyone. We cannot live with hatred. It is a pity for this country.” İlhan İşbilen requested his release and acquittal.

The Presiding Judge asked for the final word of Alaeddin Kaya’s lawyer in his place. The lawyer replied, “If you had given instructions for the ambulance, he was ready to make his defense. He cannot be here outside of his own will. Using the final word on his behalf means a violation of the right to defense.”

After a 1.5-hour break, the Presiding Judge announced that a decision to resist the reversal decree of the 3rd Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals was taken unanimously, and the defendants were sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment for “establishing and managing an organization, attempting to abolish the constitutional order.”

Aside from the local court resisting the Supreme Court’s decision for the second time, this happened:

Before the verdict, the public prosecutor’s opinion was not taken regarding either the release requests or the merits. In other words, the procedural deficiency in the reversal justification of the General Assembly of Criminal Chambers of the Supreme Court of Appeals was not remedied either. But one way or another, it was finished on the eve of the anniversary of July 15.

It seems this file will go back and forth more, and some will continue to say “The Republic of Turkey is a state governed by the rule of law”!..

Müyesser YILDIZ

July 13, 2025