Former Diyanet President Görmez testifies in court regarding the night of July 15: Allegations of Hakan Fidan's abduction

Müyesser YILDIZ / 12punto.com.tr

At the beginning of the 9th session of the trial, which is being heard by the Ankara 14th High Criminal Court at the Sincan Prison campus and involves 12 defendants, the Presiding Judge announced that they had decided to hear Görmez during an interim session following the submission of his address by the Presidency of Religious Affairs.

HE DID NOT COME TO SINCAN, CONNECTED VIA SEGBIS FROM THE COURTHOUSE

However, when it became clear that Görmez would connect via SEGBIS (Audio and Visual Information System) from the Ankara Courthouse rather than appearing in the courtroom, defense attorney Ayşe Süeda Ünal stated, "We are in the same province and the same judicial district. Due to the principle of directness and face-to-face proceedings, I object to him being heard via SEGBIS and request that he be brought here for a confrontation."

The Presiding Judge stated that even the court panel could only reach Sincan in 2 hours due to heavy rain and traffic. After asking for their opinions, the Prosecutor and the attorney for the plaintiff, Hakan Fidan, stated that there was no legal impropriety in hearing Görmez via SEGBIS. The court then unanimously rejected the request to bring Görmez to the courtroom, citing the fact that 6 of the defendants were connecting via SEGBIS from different prisons, the court panel's own 2-hour commute due to weather and traffic, the HSK's principle decision regarding SEGBIS, the regulations in the CMK (Criminal Procedure Code), ECHR case law, and the fact that the trial has been ongoing for 2 years and 8 months, deeming the request an attempt to delay the proceedings.

After Görmez, who stated during identity verification that he is retired and serves as the founder of the Institute of Islamic Thought, was sworn in, the Presiding Judge read the names of the 12 defendants and asked him to recount what he knew, posing questions such as: "Was your meeting with Hakan Fidan on the night of July 15, along with a Syrian cleric or official, planned? Did you hear gunfire or shots being fired? Did you see helicopters? How did you leave there? Did you see any military personnel around?"

MUAZ AL-KHATIB WANTED TO MEET WITH THE PRESIDENT

Görmez summarized his account as follows:

"In 2013, as the President of Religious Affairs, we launched a peace initiative against DAESH and formed a contact group consisting of 200 scholars. There was a meeting of this contact group at the beginning of July. Muaz al-Khatib is a scholar and served as the leader of the opposition in Syria for a time. He also came to the meeting. He brought a file regarding actions targeting our country from Syria and said he wanted to present it to the President. As soon as I saw the contents, I thought I should immediately convey it to the Minister of Interior or the MIT Undersecretary. I requested an appointment from both. The first appointment was given by the MIT Undersecretary.

It was supposed to be on Wednesday, but it was canceled and rescheduled for Friday, July 15, at 20:30. We were there at that time that day. The MIT Undersecretary arrived with a slight delay. He politely said he had limited time. Our guest first gave a presentation in Arabic, and I translated. Later, when he realized he knew English, he continued in English. Meanwhile, notes and phone calls were coming to the MIT Undersecretary rapidly.

After 45 minutes, upon receiving a note, he stood up quickly and said, 'This is a difficult night for Turkey. Do not leave here and pray.' 5-6 minutes later, I began to hear the sounds of planes and helicopters. The helicopter attack affected the place where I was with both its sound and light. I asked those there, and they said, 'We are facing an attack of unknown nature. We have to go down to the bunker.' However, based on the messages I received that the Bosphorus Bridge was blocked by tanks, I thought this was a terrorist attack. I said, 'I will not go down, I have to return to my institution.'"

The Presiding Judge intervened and asked, "Was your vehicle armored?" Görmez, who answered "No," noted that MIT officials allocated an armored vehicle to him, even asked him to wear a bulletproof vest, and that they left in this vehicle. He added that upon receiving a message from his wife saying, "The house is not safe," he went to his daughter's house.

After Görmez concluded his remarks by saying, "My testimony is limited to these," the Presiding Judge asked Görmez various questions based on some interviews he had given regarding July 15.

FİDAN ALSO HAD HULUSİ AKAR, WHOM HE COULD NOT REACH, CALLED FROM HIS HOME

Görmez answered one question by saying, "Yes, notes were coming and going during the meeting with the MIT Undersecretary. In one, he said, 'Connect me to the Chief of General Staff.' He was informed that he could not be reached. He asked for his aide to be connected. He was told that he could not be reached either. He asked for his home to be connected. Around 22:00, he had conversations with the Prime Minister."

Upon the Judge's question, "Was any uprising, coup attempt, or activity directed at the MIT Undersecretary mentioned during the meeting?" he explained:

"When I saw that we were facing an extraordinary situation, I said, 'Let us come another time.' The word 'coup' was not mentioned. I remember him mentioning some unauthorized planes taking off in our skies and that they were being neutralized. I heard about the coup while going down to the bunker."

The following dialogue ensued:

Judge: "Did you see any military personnel while leaving in the armored vehicle?"

Görmez: "It was a very intense night. I was only asked to get into the vehicle very quickly. As soon as I got in, it left with extraordinary speed. After leaving, I saw some sounds and lights behind me. In such cases, my security detail would be in the front. This time, since it was an MIT vehicle, I saw MIT personnel sitting in the front. I asked him. The situation had become clear."

FİDAN SAID "I WILL GO TO THE GENERAL STAFF AGAIN"

Judge: "Was there any anxiety in the MIT Undersecretary?"

Görmez: "From the moment we started the meeting, I realized from his demeanor and words that there was an extraordinary situation. An open-ended appointment had been given. I also wanted to express myself and talk about the situation of young people from some of our provinces who joined the ISIS structure. When he said, 'Let it be short, let it be a summary of the summary, let it be 20 minutes,' even though he had been away for a long time, I understood that there was an extraordinary situation.

He stated that he had to go to the meeting at the General Staff again. I thought, 'This is the usual state of such security institutions.' But he always expressed this; he said, 'Because of the respect I have for both myself and my institution, I did not want to cancel for the second time.' After he left, I asked the officials, 'Are we not going to say goodbye to the Undersecretary?' The official said, 'No, he had to move to his own headquarters.'"

Upon the Judge's final question, Görmez said he did not know any of the defendants, and the questioning by the defendants began.

FİDAN GAVE A BRIEFING TO THE DİYANET TWICE

The questions from one of the defendants, İlkay Ateş, and Görmez's answers were as follows:

Ateş: "Is there a special reason why you did not come to the courtroom and connected via SEGBIS from the Courthouse?"

Görmez: "I came to the Courthouse thinking the hearing was there."

Ateş: "Was the address not written on the notification?"

Görmez: "No."

Ateş: "Is the oath you took as a witness religiously valid?"

Görmez: "Of course."

Ateş: "Have you been to the MIT before for any meal or presentation?"

Görmez: "When I was the Deputy President of Religious Affairs, the MIT Undersecretary was the President of TİKA. Our work overlapped all over the world, in our heartland, and we were doing this work together. We met many times; we know and recognize each other."

Ateş: "Did you have any official meetings after Hakan Fidan became the MIT Undersecretary and you became the President of Religious Affairs?"

Görmez: "We invited him twice regarding the parallel structure and rising terrorism in the world to the High Board of Religious Affairs. He gave a briefing. He came personally. I was also present."

Ateş: "Muaz al-Khatib, the leader of the Syrian opposition; does he have any connection with the FSA (Free Syrian Army)?"

Görmez: "Muaz al-Khatib is a scholar. After leading the opposition for only 8 months, he stated that he could not do this job and continued his scholarship."

Ateş: "You said you went to provide information about actions to be taken against Turkey. Did this have any connection with the FSA?"

Görmez: "I don't know that. He said that important information had come from his friends and that he wanted to convey this in a file to the President or Turkish authorities. When I saw the contents, I thought he should meet with the then-Minister of Interior Efkan Ala or Hakan Fidan and requested an appointment from them."

Ateş: "How did Muaz al-Khatib come to the MIT?"

Görmez: "He was staying at the General Directorate of Foundations' hotel. He came with a vehicle from the Presidency of Religious Affairs. After our meeting with Hakan Fidan ended, I asked for our guest to be taken away before I went down to the bunker, and he left."

Ateş: "What time did the Prime Minister call? Who called whom?"

Görmez: "Yes, they said, 'The Prime Minister is calling,' and he spoke. They brought a mobile phone and connected it. I don't know who called whom."

Ateş: "When did the attack start?"

Görmez: "After Hakan Fidan left."

Ateş: "Did the attack happen before the Prime Minister's call? What time did you leave?"

Görmez: "No, I didn't hear it. It was 22:30 when I left."

Ateş: "From whom and how did you learn that this was a coup?"

Görmez: "While going down to the bunker, I saw on the television that was on that the Bosphorus Bridge was blocked. I understood from the messages from my wife and other friends. My wife said, 'The surroundings are chaotic, they have come to take you, do not come home.' She told me in Arabic not to come home and pointed to my daughter's house."

Görmez also said, upon a question from İlkay Ateş regarding the *sâlâ* (funeral prayer announcements), "I want to express that this is a duty that will be written in golden letters in the history of both myself and the Presidency of Religious Affairs."

Meanwhile, the Presiding Judge asked if he had witnessed the contents of the conversations Hakan Fidan had with Prime Minister Binali Yıldırım and others. Görmez said that Fidan did not have any conversations in their presence.

HE WAS NOT CALLED TO THE TBMM COUP COMMISSION

During the questions of one of the defendants, the former commander of Army Aviation, retired brigadier general Ünsal Coşkun, the following dialogues took place in summary:

Coşkun: "Why didn't you go to the TBMM (Grand National Assembly of Turkey) Research Commission in person?"

Judge: "This is not a coup attempt trial."

Görmez: "I did not receive such an invitation. Let me express my thought as a matter of principle; there is not a single second of that night that I would not share with our nation. If an invitation had come, I would have liked to go and tell it second by second, with honor."

Coşkun: "But you sent a letter regarding this issue to the commission on January 2, 2017, with your signature."

Görmez: "Where did we send it? I have no information. There were routine correspondences with all institutions at that time. It is routine information requested from institutions, not a letter we wrote ourselves. I don't remember its nature."

Coşkun: "In the letter Muaz al-Khatib sent to the commission, he says, 'A comprehensive project regarding Syria'."

Hakan Fidan's attorney: "There is no right to ask direct questions to the parties. The questions go beyond the day of the event; the content of the relationship between two high-level state institutions is being questioned."

Judge: "Let's skip questions that will enter into state secrets."

Coşkun: "A new comprehensive plan regarding the solution of the Syrian crisis is mentioned. The President of Religious Affairs being there... Let this briefing file be added to the court file, let's see what its connection is with the Presidency of Religious Affairs."

Member Judge: "It has nothing to do with this file."

Coşkun: "Where did you meet with Muaz al-Khatib?"

Görmez: "We arrived at the MIT campus at the same time, we met there."

Coşkun: "Muaz al-Khatib says, 'I came on Friday morning, we went together urgently'."

Görmez: "He had been our guest for a week. He told me this at the contact group meeting on Monday."

While Görmez reacted to the subsequent questions by saying, "I consider questions that would cast a shadow on this treacherous coup attempt to be an injustice," Ünsal Coşkun asked this time, "Is the individuality of crime mentioned in the Quran?"

To the warning of the Presiding Judge that "Religious issues are not being discussed here," Coşkun reacted as follows:

"I am asking because he said, 'I called on our nation to claim their rights that night.' Leaving us aside; our wives, our children are being punished. How do you view genocide, Mr. Görmez?" he said.

One of the defendants, Özcan Karacan, after making a request for the recusal of the judge because Mehmet Görmez was not made available in the courtroom, said the following:

"Frankly, you prevented him from coming. He was also afraid to face us. I wish he were as brave as he says and showed the courage to tell the truth. He is afraid of telling the truth."

Görmez replied, "I completely reject this accusation. I don't have a second to hide. I am honored by every second of mine."

GÖRMEZ SAID "NO" BUT SINCAN WAS WRITTEN ON THE NOTIFICATION

Görmez, who did not answer Özcan Karacan's question, "Why were you dismissed with a sudden decision?", replied to the question, "What did your wife mean when she said, 'The house is not safe'? Is there a record, video, or document regarding this?" as follows:

"Later, we discussed this issue with my wife. She said she was suspicious of the heavy vehicle traffic that night because we were in a quiet place. There is nothing else besides that."

Görmez reacted to Özcan Karacan's words, "We are being tried because of the statements of these people whose fear has affected their tongues. The victim, the complainant wants to hold someone accountable. You did not come to the main trial. You resisted not coming to this one either. Why were you afraid?" as follows:

"I think the trial is about whether I witnessed the attack of the two helicopters that were on the MIT campus that night. I witnessed two grave attacks. Other than that, I am telling what I know from my heart so that justice may be served. I do not want to deal with the contradictions that my friends want to find. A subpoena came to me for the first time. As soon as it arrived, I came here. I have never been called to any court before."

Görmez, who stated upon the question of one of the defense attorneys, Ayşe Süeda Ünal, that Muaz al-Khatib's vehicle was not armored and that they left in a normal vehicle, answered the questions of Atty. Ayten İzmirli, "Did you talk about your families while chatting with Hakan Fidan that day? Were you meeting as families before? Did you know that Hakan Fidan sent his wife and children out of Ankara that day?" by saying, "We didn't have time to say such a word because we were discussing dangerous topics. I don't know that he sent his wife and children."

After his testimony ended, the Presiding Judge thanked Görmez for answering the questions clearly and took the requests of the defendants.

The defendants emphasized that the takeoff times of the Army Aviation Command helicopters and the times given by Görmez did not match, and requested that the unidentified helicopters that opened fire on the MIT campus at the specified time be identified. The defendants, who asked why the date and time information in the camera recordings were deleted, also pointed out the following:

"They allocated an armored vehicle to Mehmet Görmez the moment he felt there was an attack. If Hakan Fidan was there at that moment, could he have left too? He could have. Since he didn't leave, it means he didn't see any danger. In this case, can we be accused of restricting freedom? With what ability were we going to seize Hakan Fidan and hold him until morning?"

Atty. Ayşe Süeda Ünal, reminding that Mehmet Görmez said that it was not written in the notification that the hearing would be held in Sincan, said, "No, it is written in bold letters in the notification. While even this statement of the witness cannot be trusted, suspicion arises regarding the others as well. He is literate. It is clear that he did not come here intentionally."

After the statements were completed, the Court decided to reject the requests for the expansion of the prosecution and the hearing of witnesses, and the Prosecutor, who presented his opinion on the merits, requested that all defendants be punished for restricting freedom and damaging public property.

The court adjourned the hearing to June 12-13 for the defendants and their attorneys to make their defenses against the opinion on the merits.

News Source: 12punto