Erdoğan's former legal advisor: A crime has been committed, the Constitutional Court President should resign to send a message
Prof. Dr. İzzet Özgenç, former legal advisor to AKP Chairman and President Erdoğan, has reacted to the Istanbul 13th High Criminal Court's refusal to comply with the Constitutional Court (AYM) ruling regarding Tayfun Kahraman.
12punto
The Istanbul 13th High Criminal Court has rejected the request for the release and retrial of Gezi Park trial defendant Tayfun Kahraman, despite the Constitutional Court's ruling in favor of a retrial.
In its rejection decision, the Istanbul 13th High Criminal Court claimed that the Constitutional Court, which ruled that Kahraman's right to a fair trial had been violated and ordered a retrial by stating that "his actions had no causal link to violent incidents," had "acted like a super-appellate court."
The court's decision, which included statements that the Constitutional Court is "not a super-appellate court" and that it had "usurped authority," stated: "The Constitutional Court, while issuing a rights violation decision as a result of an individual application review in this concrete case, acted as if it were an appellate authority, and in the reasoning it created, it acted in clear violation of both the Constitution and the mandatory provisions of the law, thereby committing an 'usurpation of authority'."
Evaluating the first-instance court's decision, Prof. Dr. İzzet Özgenç, former legal advisor to President Erdoğan, noted the following in a post on his X account:
“A CRIME has been committed and continues to be committed with the additional decision dated 6.11.2025, numbered 2021/178 and 2022/178, taken/ensured to be taken by the president and members of the Istanbul 13th High Criminal Court and their INSTIGATORS. It is the expectation of society that the Council of Judges and Prosecutors (HSK) takes the necessary action.
Violating the binding nature of a Constitutional Court decision by abusing judicial power, and thereby continuing to deprive a person of their liberty, is clearly a VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION. The first reaction to this lawlessness must be shown by the Constitutional Court. This reaction should not be in the form of an abstract statement, but must be active.
To return to the rule of law and protect the prestige of the Constitutional Court, the President must immediately RESIGN as a reaction."