Dervişoğlu’s reaction to Bahçeli’s ‘house for Öcalan’ claim: What remains of the law, what remains of the state?

Stating that enforcement law operates according to the law rather than the individual, Dervişoğlu argued that the described practice has no legal basis. Dervişoğlu asked: “If a convict can determine how the state will treat them, what remains of the law, what remains of the state?” he asked.

“Enforcement law operates according to the law, not the individual”

İYİ Party Chairman Müsavat Dervişoğlu made a notable assessment following MHP Chairman Devlet Bahçeli’s statement that a “house is being built” for PKK terrorist organization leader Abdullah Öcalan.

Stating that no one in the Republic of Turkey, regardless of the crime for which they were convicted, can be subjected to treatment harsher than what the law prescribes, Dervişoğlu emphasized that the same principle also means that privileges not found in the law cannot be arbitrarily granted to convicts.

In his statement, Dervişoğlu said, “However, the same principle means that a regime lighter and more privileged than what the law prescribes cannot be arbitrarily applied either. Because enforcement law operates according to the law, not the individual.”

“A practice with no basis in law”

Pointing to the provisions of the Turkish Penal Code and Law No. 5275, Dervişoğlu stated that how an aggravated life sentence is to be enforced is clearly regulated by law.

Expressing that an aggravated life sentence is the heaviest sanction replacing the death penalty, Dervişoğlu said that the limits regarding the enforcement of this sentence were determined by the will of the legislator.

Arguing that going beyond these limits, regardless of the justification, would mean “unlawful enforcement,” Dervişoğlu continued:

“The residence described by Bahçeli—with a garden, two stories, separated office and living spaces, and where relatives can settle—is a practice that has no equivalent in any of these articles.”

“This is a shared residence, and there is no provision in enforcement law that permits this”

Dervişoğlu also stated that a convict living under the same roof with their relatives indefinitely would exceed the limits of the current visitation regime.

“This is a shared residence, and there is not a single provision in enforcement law that permits this,” said Dervişoğlu, adding that the debate is not limited only to the house allegedly being built.

“What is more serious is who is setting the condition”

In the most striking part of his statement, the İYİ Party leader brought up the conditions under which living in the house in question is being tied, according to the claims relayed by Bahçeli.

Arguing that according to Bahçeli’s account, the party setting the condition is a terror convict, Dervişoğlu made the following assessment:

“The man is already being offered a comfort zone that has no legal basis, but he finds even that insufficient and says, ‘Let the committees of the Framework Law start working, let me start serving on those committees, and then I will move to the house,’ thereby conducting status bargaining against the state.”

“It is legally impossible for a convict to serve on official committees”

Dervişoğlu argued that a convict serving on official committees would clearly contradict the spirit of enforcement legislation.

Asserting that such a duty is legally impossible, Dervişoğlu said that what is truly serious is that a convict finds the opportunities granted to them insufficient and suspends the state’s offer until an official status is obtained.

“Under normal conditions, the state determines the enforcement regime,” said Dervişoğlu, claiming that in the current picture, the convict has become the determining party.

“It is not the rules of enforcement law, but the rules of the bargaining table that are at work”

Dervişoğlu stated that it is remarkable that a terror convict can reject the opportunities offered by the state and demand official status in return, and that this is conveyed to the public by a politician in a calm tone.

The İYİ Party Chairman argued that this situation gives the impression that a “bargaining table” is at work rather than enforcement law, and concluded his statement with these words:

“The question that needs to be asked has now gone beyond ‘What law is this house based on?’ The question is this: If a convict can determine how the state will treat them, what remains of the law, what remains of the state?”

No one in the Republic of Turkey, regardless of the crime for which they were convicted, can be subjected to treatment harsher than what the law prescribes.

However, the same principle means that a regime lighter and more privileged than what the law prescribes cannot be arbitrarily applied either.

Because…

— Müsavat Dervişoğlu (@MDervisogluTR) September 11, 2026

News Source: 12punto