Why did Lieutenant Ebru's lawyer say, 'I would shoot myself in front of the court'?!

We recently reported on a portion of the events surrounding the case of Ebru Eroğlu, the top-ranking graduate who was dismissed from the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) after more than 500 newly commissioned lieutenants crossed their swords and recited the Officer's Oath, declaring, "We are the soldiers of Mustafa Kemal," following the 2024 Military Academy graduation ceremony. Her appeal against this dismissal was rejected by the Ankara 4th Administrative Court.

However, there is more to tell.

As is known, the Land Forces Command High Disciplinary Board decided to dismiss Ebru Eroğlu, as well as İzzet Talip Akarsu, Serhat Gündar, Batuhan Gazi Kılıç, and Deniz Demirtaş, from the TSK with a 5-to-4 vote. Meanwhile, 14 other lieutenants identified in the inner circle of the footage related to that celebration were subjected to disciplinary investigations and punished with "not leaving the place of duty for one day" for "disobedience."

While administrative courts issued cancellation decisions for most of these penalties given to the 14 lieutenants in the cases filed, the Ankara 4th Administrative Court, which heard Lieutenant M.B.'s case, issued a unanimous "rejection" decision on December 12. In that ruling, the court effectively issued a verdict not just on M.B., but on Ebru Eroğlu.

Specifically;

The Inability of Commanders to Testify

It will also be remembered that our journalist colleague Ersin Eroğlu wrote in his book "Lieutenants - The Codes of the New TSK," published in July 2025, that 7 out of the 9 members of the Land Forces Command High Disciplinary Board had voted against the dismissal of the lieutenants, but these votes were changed as a result of pressure. Journalist Barış Terkoğlu also voiced the same claim, yet no denial came from the Ministry of National Defense (MSB).

It is well known to everyone how Land Forces Chief of Staff Lieutenant General Tevfik Algan, Head of Logistics Brigadier General Hakan Tutucu, Head of Legal Services Judge Colonel Murat Gündoğan, and Branch Manager Personnel Colonel Mehmet Akif Türkyılmaz were purged after opposing the dismissal of the lieutenants.

Following that claim in Ersin Eroğlu's book, Lieutenant Ebru's lawyers applied to the 4th Administrative Court, which was to hear the cancellation case, on July 8, 2025, requesting that these commanders be heard as witnesses.

In an interesting decision taken on January 16, the court suggested that the lawyers obtain the statements of the commanders in question before a notary and submit them to the file.

Upon this, the lawyers contacted some of the commanders and asked if they could provide statements before a notary. Naturally, they did not accept.

How do we know such an event took place?

Again, from the petition the lawyers submitted to the 4th Administrative Court on February 12.

The petition stated: "In the meetings held with some of the YDK members requested to be heard as witnesses, they expressed that it would not be appropriate to provide statements through such a procedure as no official notification/summons had been made to them by your court..." After pointing out that "as this is in the nature of evidence determination, the witnesses must be heard by the court handling the case, which requires a court summons," the following was emphasized:

- "Moreover, the personal concerns and opinions expressed to us by the witnesses we contacted to fulfill the requirements of the interim decision are not among the reasons for withdrawal regulated by law. However, since we do not possess public authority or judicial power, it is not possible for us to compel individuals who do not wish to testify due to administrative concerns—either because they have not been summoned by the court or because they are still in office—to provide statements. Without considering this, requesting that witness statements be obtained by the plaintiff and submitted to the file through a procedure not provided for in the law is inappropriate and erroneous."

- "There is no regulation in our laws regarding the taking of witness statements before a notary by a party or their attorney. Even if your interim decision to take witness statements before a notary could have been fulfilled, since the notary does not know the essence of the matter and lacks judicial authority, it would not be possible to perform the ceremony of swearing in the witnesses, which is mandatory under procedural law, nor would it be possible to ask which matters should be explained. Furthermore, the court panel and the attorneys for the plaintiff and defendant would have been prevented from exercising their right to direct questions to the witnesses to reveal the material truth."

Following these findings and objections, the following requests were made:

"In accordance with ECHR and Constitutional Court decisions stating that a decision made by an administrative court without hearing witnesses in cases where proof of a fact is only possible through witness testimony constitutes a violation of the right to a fair trial; we request that the addresses of witnesses Murat Gündoğan, Mehmet Akif Türkyılmaz, Hakan Tutucu, and Tevfik Algan be determined by inquiring with the Land Forces Command and that invitations be sent to them for the hearing on March 4... That a writ be written to the Land Forces Command for the other YDK members who are still in office to be made available at the hearing... Otherwise, that instructions be written to the civil courts of first instance in the residential areas of the YDK members to hear them..."

Of course, the court did not accept any of these requests. Its reasoning was explained in the decision regarding Lieutenant Ebru as follows: "There is no rule in the Administrative Procedure Law regarding the hearing of witnesses in trials in administrative courts. Since it is seen that the statements in question were not submitted to our court, despite there being no obstacle to obtaining the statements of the witnesses before a notary and submitting them to our court as evidence, it has been concluded that there is no action/disposition to be taken by our court regarding the plaintiff's request."

Voting Ratios... Summary Record of the Decision

Before reporting on what was discussed regarding this issue at Lieutenant Ebru's hearing on March 4, let us record what happened in the case of another lieutenant, whose result has not yet been announced, heard in another court in February.

Attorney İlter Aksoylu explained that 8 out of 9 members of the YDK voted against the dismissal of Lieutenant Batuhan Gazi Kılıç, and 7 out of 9 for the other lieutenants, but that three members changed their votes as a result of pressure, and he requested that these members be heard as witnesses.

Attorney Serdar Öztürk also said, "The YDK meeting was held on January 16. The votes changed until the decision was written on January 31."

As for Ebru Eroğlu's hearing;

Attorney Mustafa Güler said, "We heard that the votes were changed, but we did not bring it up because it was a rumor. There was no denial of what was written in the book, because it is the truth. When it was written in the book, we had to file a petition. There was still no sound from the other side. Perhaps my colleagues (referring to the MSB lawyers) will call it an 'abstract claim.' But you do not have to make a decision today; hear the witnesses." After saying this, he brought a new claim to the agenda as follows:

"Request the summary of the YDK meeting decision. According to the YDK Regulation, there is a summary that must be kept and signed at the meeting. This decision summary is the record showing what the votes were after the meeting. Issue an interim decision and request the summary record of the decision. Most likely, they will not be able to send it. If this record arrives, I will quit being a lawyer tomorrow, and I would even shoot myself in front of the court."

Continuing, Attorney Güler brought up the request to hear witnesses again, and the following dialogue took place:

Attorney Güler: "We do not have public authority; we cannot compel anyone to go to a notary to provide a witness statement. Furthermore, a witness is heard under oath. We spoke with them. They said they would come if a direct summons was issued. We reported this, but you did not do what was necessary. If there is no hearing, have them heard in the civil courts of first instance."

Presiding Judge: "As you know, we do not have a procedure for hearing witnesses in administrative justice. We tried to find a way, and this came to our mind."

Attorney Güler: "If there is a violation, witnesses can be heard in administrative justice as well. The way you found was not in accordance with the law or justice. Since we do not have the means to compel, it did not work."

Presiding Judge: "They are not witnesses anyway; they are parties to the events. They have signatures."

Attorney Güler: "Just to explain why we want such a thing. After the YDK meeting, the secretariat and all other officials leave. The members are left alone. These are the signatories, that is, the witnesses who signed... The witnesses would not defend their own decisions, but would explain whether some of the decisions were changed under pressure. Because no one else knows but these 9 people. We spoke with them; I cannot express their reservations here, but you are obliged to investigate."

There is no need to repeat the result.

Let us just state this:

After all these dialogues, the MSB lawyers said, "The allegations of pressure are not based on concrete data."

In other words, the MSB responded for the first time in nearly 9 months to the allegations that the YDK members were pressured and the votes were changed!..

Müyesser YILDIZ

March 27, 2026