Korkut Kanadoğlu is not alone

Speaking as a presidential candidate for the Lawyers' Rights Group at the Istanbul Bar Association's 128th Ordinary General Assembly, Prof. Dr. Osman Korkut Kanadoğlu criticized judges who do not comply with Constitutional Court rulings and peace judges who issue arbitrary arrest warrants. Stating that these decisions will be monitored and reported, Kanadoğlu said, “If these judges and prosecutors think, ‘I will not follow the law, I will torment lawyers and citizens, and I will bear no responsibility for this,’ let them know that we will be holding them accountable.”

Following the speech, it was announced that an ex officio investigation had been launched by the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor's Office. The statement reflected in the public domain did not specify under which crime the investigation was being conducted. Since the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office has not disclosed the legal nature of the accusation, the grounds for the investigation are not yet known.

It must be stated that demanding the implementation of Constitutional Court rulings is not opposing the judiciary. Article 153 of the Constitution clearly stipulates that Constitutional Court rulings bind legislative, executive, and judicial organs, as well as administrative authorities and other persons and organizations. Monitoring whether these decisions are implemented, criticizing practices deemed contrary to the law, and demanding that those responsible be held accountable are directly related to the functioning of the rule of law.

The fact that Kanadoğlu's speech was made at a bar association general assembly, in an environment where the legal profession and the functioning of the judiciary are discussed, should not be ignored. Lawyers voicing the legal problems they encounter in judicial processes is not only a professional right but also a part of the public responsibility of the defense. The duty of bar associations to protect the rule of law and human rights should also be evaluated within this framework.

The procedure of the investigation is at least as important as the content of the speech.

Article 58 of the Attorneys' Law provides for a special investigation procedure for crimes alleged to have been committed by lawyers arising from their duties or during their duties. Considering the connection of Kanadoğlu's speech to his professional activities, whether this provision will be applied in this specific case should be examined separately. If there is a situation where permission must be obtained from the Ministry of Justice by law, it is mandatory to follow this procedure.

In the Constitutional Court's decision dated May 18, 2026, regarding Eyyup Akıncı (App. No: 2023/101443), the assessments that lawyers' defense duties are not limited to the courtroom and that they can bring irregularities they observe in judicial processes to the attention of the public are significant. Not allowing lawyers to benefit from procedural safeguards in investigations conducted due to their professional activities may create problems in terms of the right to defense and freedom of expression.

What is being defended here is not that lawyers cannot be investigated under any circumstances due to their professional activities, but that the safeguards provided by law must be followed and that the claim of criminal liability must be based on a concrete legal foundation. A legal professional criticizing judicial practices cannot be seen as a justification that alone warrants a criminal investigation.

The phrase “we will be holding them accountable” used by Kanadoğlu in his speech should also be evaluated within this framework. The fact that a statement is found harsh or disturbs the people being criticized does not in itself show that the crime of threat has been committed. The entirety of the expression, the environment in which the speech was made, and the purpose of the statement must be considered together.

The European Court of Human Rights also acknowledges that members of the judiciary are not entirely immune to criticism. In the Morice v. France judgment, it was stated that judges could be subject to personal criticism within certain limits, while in the Baka v. Hungary judgment, the public importance of statements regarding the functioning of the judiciary and judicial independence was emphasized. These decisions reveal the balance that must be established between the protection of judicial authority and freedom of expression.

Judicial independence does not mean that judges' decisions are beyond debate. Independence guarantees that judges make decisions according to the law and their conscientious convictions; it does not mean the elimination of legality audits and criticism. Especially on a matter that directly concerns the constitutional order, such as the implementation of Constitutional Court rulings, it is a normal requirement of the rule of law for lawyers and bar associations to have a say.

In the Constitutional Court's Barzan Demirhan decision, the importance of context and freedom of expression was highlighted while evaluating statements related to defense activities. The same approach should be adopted regarding Kanadoğlu's words. Selecting a few expressions instead of evaluating the whole speech and interpreting them in the harshest way may create problems in terms of the necessity and proportionality of the interference with freedom of expression.

Moreover, it is particularly significant that these words were expressed by a legal professional who is a candidate for the presidency of the Istanbul Bar Association. The duty of bar associations goes beyond dealing with the professional problems of lawyers and includes defending the rule of law and human rights. Demanding that the judiciary operate in accordance with the law is an inseparable part of this responsibility.

Korkut Kanadoğlu is not alone. Defending the rule of law also requires being able to criticize the functioning of the judiciary when necessary. Demanding compliance with the Constitution and demanding that those responsible for unlawful practices be held accountable is a responsibility that legal professionals cannot abandon.

Attorney Deniz Ali İlkem Demir