A Compliment from the Presiding Judge to Ümit Özdağ: "If You Had Studied Law..."

Zafer Party Chairman Prof. Ümit Özdağ, who was detained in Ankara on charges of insulting the President and taken to Istanbul, where he was arrested on charges of "inciting the public to hatred and hostility," spent 148 days imprisoned in Silivri, and was later released with a 2-year, 4-month prison sentence, experienced a true "day of acquittal" in Ankara.

Prof. Özdağ was acquitted in a total of four cases brought against him and heard in the same court, including the charge of disclosing the names of two National Intelligence Organization (MİT) personnel who were martyred in Libya.

While it was noted that the prosecutor requested acquittal in all of the cases, the Presiding Judge joked with Prof. Özdağ after his defense statements, saying, "If you had studied law, you would have been a good rival to us."

In the Ankara 26th High Criminal Court, the first case heard was an insult lawsuit filed by former Interior Minister İdris Naim Şahin regarding statements made by Prof. Ümit Özdağ following Şahin's candidacy for Mayor of Ordu in 2019.

"IF THE POLITICAL WING OF FETÖ WERE PURSUED"

In his defense, Prof. Özdağ explained that after July 15, it was revealed that a large portion of all provincial and district police chiefs and district governors in Turkey were members of "FETÖ," and that İdris Naim Şahin was supported by institutions and newspapers affiliated with "FETÖ" both after leaving the AKP and during the party-founding stage, stating, "For this reason, I did not wish for him to be elected as mayor. I shared my views. I did not insult; I made an assessment, I performed a national duty."

İdris Naim Şahin's lawyer asked Özdağ whether his claim that "FETÖ" settled into the Ministry of Interior during Şahin's term was based on information or conjecture. Özdağ replied as follows:

"This is an open, documented, and clarified matter in the public eye. It emerged in many cases. Hundreds of police chiefs and district governors were dismissed. Because the political wing of FETÖ was not investigated, Şahin was not pursued. If it were investigated, Şahin would have been the first to be pursued."

While Şahin's lawyer recalled that a non-prosecution decision was issued in an investigation opened upon a report on this matter, one of Prof. Özdağ's lawyers, Murat Yıldız, reminded the court that Erdoğan had referred to Şahin as "those who let their tails be caught by the terrorist organization" during a rally in Ordu at that time, noting that both individuals were politicians and that what was said fell within the scope of freedom of expression.

Following the completion of the statements, the Prosecutor requested an acquittal for Prof. Özdağ on the grounds that "the legal elements of the alleged crime were not formed."

Asked for his final words, Prof. Özdağ said, "The President knows the person in question better and possesses the state's intelligence information. If a comparison is made, what the President said is much harsher, but he did not sue him."

The court unanimously decided to acquit Prof. Özdağ on the grounds that "the legal elements of the alleged crime were not formed."

HDP CASE: CONTINUING TO DEFEND THE HOMELAND

Prof. Özdağ was secondly tried in a case filed by former HDP MP Ali Kenanoğlu on charges of insult.

In his defense, explaining that they were both MPs at the time and that he reacted to Ali Kenanoğlu after he used a phrase spoken by Seyit Rıza—who rebelled against the state and killed our soldiers and citizens—while he was being executed, Prof. Özdağ stated:

"The HDP has shown more hostility toward Turkey than Armenian, Greek, and Bulgarian parties. I stand by this statement and my other remarks today as well. There is no point in taking this to court. There is no insult; there is harsh criticism. I will continue to defend our martyrs, our veterans, and our homeland."

Prof. Özdağ also responded to the question from Ali Kenanoğlu's lawyer, "Is it a crime to be Armenian?" as follows:

"It is definitely not a crime to be Armenian. I have Armenian friends. If someone hides their true identity and engages in Kurdish nationalism, that is where the problem lies. They know, and Turkey knows, who I am referring to."

In this case, too, the Prosecutor requested Özdağ's acquittal. The court again unanimously issued an acquittal decision.

THE PROSECUTOR ALSO COMMITTED A CRIME

In the case opened on charges of disclosing the two MİT personnel martyred in Libya, Prof. Ümit Özdağ said the following:

"I learned that our two MİT personnel were martyred from the press and social media. When the President mentioned the martyrs, he said, 'one, two martyrs.' Upon this, I held a press conference in the Grand National Assembly of Turkey (TBMM), mentioned their names which had already been disclosed, wished them mercy, and stated that they had gone down in Turkish history as heroes."

The Presiding Judge asked where he learned the names. After stating that journalist Murat Ağırel had written them and that they had appeared in hundreds of places, Prof. Özdağ explained that this press conference he held in Parliament was also within the scope of legislative immunity with the following examples:

"In the General Assembly, 150 meters from where I held my press conference, a DEM member recently said, 'You are building a dam on our lands and selling us electricity at a high price.' In other words, he is showing Turkey's lands as a separate place; he is not being tried, but I am being tried for wishing mercy for our martyrs. Is this justice? Or another DEM member says, 'May God damn you,' but he is protected under legislative immunity. The Constitution says, 'all activities in the TBMM,' it does not say 'here' or 'there.' I am a person who knows state secrets. The state has placed 'top secret' labels on documents I have written. MİT did not file a criminal complaint against me, but against the people who made the first post. They know I did not disclose it and would not disclose it. Something that has been disclosed cannot be disclosed. The prosecutor clearly wrote their names in the indictment he sent to the TBMM."

While one of Prof. Özdağ's lawyers, his brother Prof. Savaş Özdağ, said, "If disclosing a disclosure were a crime, the Prosecutor would also be a defendant here," Attorney Murat Yıldız noted that many people, including their colleagues, Murat Ağırel, and Erk Acarer, had shared the names of the martyred MİT personnel.

Following the statements, the Prosecutor requested an acquittal, stating that the information was already in open sources before Özdağ's statement and therefore the legal elements of the alleged crime were not formed, while also requesting that a criminal complaint be filed with the Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor's Office to identify the person or persons who first disclosed the names of the MİT personnel.

Upon this opinion, Prof. Özdağ commented, "For the first time, I see that Article 10 of the Constitution is being applied, and that all citizens are equal before the law. Since I have been subjected to enemy criminal law before, I find this opinion important and valuable."

His lawyer, Prof. Savaş Özdağ, while offering his congratulations to the Prosecutor, criticized, "However, it appears the opinion was prepared before our statements."

The court unanimously decided to acquit Özdağ in the MİT case as well, on the grounds that the legal elements of the alleged crime were not formed.

HIS ADVISOR MADE THAT POST

Finally, Prof. Ümit Özdağ was tried in a case opened on charges of "slander" due to a social media post.

The social media advisor, who was heard as a witness before Özdağ, explained that he took the initiative to make the post in question when he could not reach Özdağ, and that it was deleted by the Chairman when it was understood that it was not accurate.

Prof. Özdağ also said the following:

"There are many lawyers in my family. I have read a lot of law in the last 10 months. I learned that slander is a conscious act. I had no such intention. I was actually going to apologize to the public. However, when the victim's older brother made very harsh statements about me, I said, 'I am not apologizing.'"

While Özdağ's lawyers noted that other staff members also used Özdağ's social media accounts and that the post was not a deliberate or conscious act, the complainant's lawyer stated that his client was lynched on social media after this post and that his mental health had deteriorated, requesting that Özdağ be punished.

Following the defenses, the Prosecutor requested Özdağ's acquittal on the grounds that the defendant and the complainant did not know each other and there was no intent. The court again unanimously decided to acquit Özdağ as there was no intent.

At the end of the hearing, the Presiding Judge joked with Özdağ, "If you had studied law, you would have been a good rival to us." Prof. Özdağ replied, "Yes," and his lawyers added, "There is no need for us."

Müyesser YILDIZ
July 8, 2025

News Source: Müyesser Yıldız