Ayhan Bora Kaplan has recused the court panel!..

Following Mahmut Gökhan Çanga, one of the defendants in the Bora Kaplan criminal organization case, Bora Kaplan's lawyers have also filed a motion to recuse the Ankara 32nd High Criminal Court panel overseeing the case, requesting the formation of a new panel to ensure a fair and impartial trial.

In the application filed today by Bora Kaplan's lawyers Tarık Teoman, Umut Köroğlu, and Rıdvan Şahin, it was emphasized that phone conversations between the fugitive defendant and secret witness “M7”, Serdar Sertçelik, and KOM Branch Manager Şevket Demircan revealed that the President of the 32nd High Criminal Court had provided guarantees for Sertçelik. The lawyers then explained as follows how the flight of “M7” was concealed from the defendants and their lawyers:

“Despite an interim decision being established in the preliminary proceedings and at the beginning of the hearing that secret witnesses would be heard, it was determined that on January 19, 2024, before the interim decisions of the April 26, 2024 session were announced, the Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor's Office wrote to the court stating that the secret witness codenamed M7 could not be made available for the trial on the grounds that they had violated the secret witness program. It is a fact that this writ was not processed into the UYAP records in a timely manner (until the interrogation of all defendants was completed) and was concealed from all defendants and their lawyers for a long time, restricting our right to defense. When we raised this issue, the presiding judge himself stated in court that the writ in question had also escaped the panel's notice. Although it was known to the court that the secret witness M7 could not be provided and brought to the hearing, and that the decision to lift the witness protection measure had been made, this situation was not reported to the defendants and their counsel. It is obvious that an unlawful procedure was established by questioning some defendants using the completely false statements obtained from the secret witness under duress. Questioning the defendants about the statements of a secret witness who could not be heard in court—and whose statements could not be used as a basis for a verdict in any case because cross-examination could not be conducted—and preventing the lawyers from exercising their right to object by not notifying them of the incoming writ, was unlawful.”

THE PRESIDENT SAID “I NEED TO FINISH THE FILE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE”

Kaplan's lawyers also stated that although they were told that the second secret witness, codenamed “Ü5”, would be heard in court and an interim decision was made to that effect, they discovered upon reviewing the SEGBİS (Audio and Visual Information System) transcript that “Ü5” had been heard by the court between sessions. They noted that the secret witness was led by the Court President and asked about matters not included in their previous statement, and they voiced the following allegation:

“The pressure applied to the defendants and their lawyers through words, attitudes, and actions has become openly palpable. In a file consisting of hundreds of folders and 61 defendants, all our requests made to uncover the material truth have been rejected without justification, and the president himself has stated in almost every session that the case will be concluded by October-November at the latest. Even before the SEGBİS transcripts reached us, and before most witnesses and complainants were heard, open pressure was applied to the lawyers, saying, 'Submit all your requests to expand the prosecution, make your defense on the merits immediately, I need to finish the file as soon as possible.'”

Following their objections, which they listed in 15 points, the lawyers requested the recusal of the panel and the formation of a new one, stating: “Under these circumstances, since there is great doubt and concern that continuing the next stage of the trial with the honorable president and his panel would mean that my client is not being tried fairly, impartially, or in accordance with justice and equity.”

Müyesser YILDIZ

May 28, 2024

News Source: 12punto