Bribery allegations between prosecutor and judge in Hatay: 'Pressure for acquittal'

In Hatay, Public Prosecutor Abdussamed B. filed a complaint against Judge Mehmet Mustafa Ş., who had accused him of bribery. It is alleged that the prosecutor was pressured to issue a decision of non-prosecution in a case involving a vehicle investigation known as "change".

The tension between the prosecutor and the judge also reflected on other investigations within the courthouse.

According to BirGün columnist and journalist Timur Soykan; the Hatay Provincial Police Department conducted an operation in 2022 against a gang involved in 'change' activities by altering the chassis numbers of semi-trucks. This gang was changing the chassis numbers of unregistered trucks, or those subject to seizure or liens, allowing them to be driven on the road. Under the instructions of Hatay Public Prosecutor Abdussamed B., who was conducting the investigation, 63 trucks were seized and their chassis numbers were examined. According to the complaint by Prosecutor Abdussamed B.; Mert M., one of the lawyers from the Hatay Bar Association, was constantly coming to his office and asking questions about the investigation.

On January 3, 2023, Judge Mehmet Mustafa Ş. of the Hatay 5th Criminal Court of First Instance called Prosecutor Abdussamed B. via WhatsApp and requested a meeting. Judge Mehmet Mustafa Ş. was an experienced judge who had served as the commission president and heavy penal court president at the courthouse in Hatay's Kırıkhan district for many years. He had been appointed to the Hatay Courthouse 2.5 months prior.

"CAN'T A NON-PROSECUTION DECISION BE WRITTEN FOR THIS FILE?"

The prosecutor told the judge that he was not in his office and would stop by when he was available. Abdussamed B. described what happened next in his statement as a complainant:

“Judge Mehmet Mustafa Ş. asked about the file regarding the 'change' vehicle investigation. He said, ‘This is our lawyer Mert's file. Can't a non-prosecution decision be written for this file?’ I stated that it had been determined that the chassis numbers of some vehicles had been altered and that it was not possible to write a non-prosecution decision. Upon this response, the Judge said, ‘If you write a non-prosecution decision for this file, who is going to object anyway?’ I then stated that there was a crime involved and that, both in terms of conscience and law, a non-prosecution decision could not be issued. Judge Mehmet Mustafa Ş. said, ‘Let's fine this Mert. If necessary, let the three of us have a meal and talk about this.’ I stated that if there was a penalty, the state would impose it, and that I would not accept the matters he proposed. The Judge insisted, saying, ‘Let's impose it, let's impose it, let's fine Mert.’ When I said that I would not request any benefit from anyone, the Judge told me, ‘Even if you don't take it, they will say you did.’”

"A POLITICIAN WHOSE NAME I FORGOT DUE TO THE EARTHQUAKE REQUESTED IT"

Judge Mehmet Mustafa Ş. did not accept the accusations and spoke as follows:

“During that process, a politician or bureaucrat whose name I cannot remember right now (I forgot due to the earthquake) had requested that the prosecutor's 'change' file, which was not progressing, be accelerated within the framework of fairness. I absolutely did not offer a bribe; I only asked about the fate of the file. I had heard that the prosecutor was having meals with the parties in this file, and when I said this, he became aggressive. A setup was orchestrated against me.”

THE PROSECUTOR WHO DID NOT KNOW THE FILE AND THE ACQUITTAL

The prosecutor's accusation of bribery against the judge at the Hatay Courthouse had opened Pandora's box. A new complaint came from within the courthouse against Judge Mehmet Mustafa Ş. Ayşegül G., the trial prosecutor at the Hatay 5th Criminal Court of First Instance, was accusing the court's judge, Mehmet Mustafa Ş.

This time, there was suspicion in a case where a narcotics police officer was accused of theft. On August 30, 2022, narcotics police stopped the car driven by Mehmet Ali G. in the Defne district of Hatay. No drugs were found in this car. However, it was alleged that police officer Fatih Mehmet K. stole 1,000 TL and a bottle of perfume from the car. The narcotics police officer working with Fatih Mehmet K. witnessed the incident and told his supervisor. He even called Fatih Mehmet K. while next to his supervisor and put the phone on speaker. During this time, Fatih Mehmet K. admitted to taking the 1,000 TL and the perfume from the car. The narcotics police officer was arrested for theft. His lawyer was also Mert M., who was determined to have close connections with Judge Mehmet Mustafa Ş.

Fatih Mehmet K. had been released but was dismissed from the police force. For him to return to his profession, it had to be established that the crime was not committed and he had to be acquitted. On May 16, 2023, there was a decision hearing for this case in which the narcotics police officer was being tried.

The first part of the statement by trial prosecutor Ayşegül G. revealed the dire state of the judicial system. Ayşegül G. said:

“The case file in which the narcotics police officer was accused of theft had not been sent to me for review. In fact, most of the time, files were not sent to me by the trial judge. Sometimes I would examine the files via UYAP, and sometimes on the bench during the hearing. Upon the Judge saying that he would make a decision on the file in question and telling me to provide an opinion, I said that I would examine the file during the lunch break and provide an opinion.”

In other words, the prosecutor was attending hearings without knowing the case file, working only during the lunch break to decide on the verdict for the defendant.

VERY INFLUENTIAL PEOPLE

Trial prosecutor Ayşegül G. continued to describe that day:

“During the lunch break, Judge Mehmet Mustafa Ş. came to my office. He put intense pressure on me to provide an acquittal opinion, saying that very influential people had intervened in this file, that the police officer was innocent, and that he should be acquitted.”

Ayşegül G. provided an opinion at the hearing for the defendant to be acquitted due to lack of evidence. However, the Judge decided that it was established that the crime had not been committed and ruled for the acquittal of the former narcotics police officer. The defendant, against whom there was a large amount of evidence and witness statements, would thus be able to return to the police force. In the continuation of her statement, Prosecutor Ayşegül G. explained that she spoke with an experienced prosecutor at the courthouse after the hearing. During this time, she said she learned that Judge Mehmet Mustafa Ş. had initiated an investigation against her for offering a bribe to a prosecutor.

When she checked the hearing for which she requested acquittal on UYAP, she saw that the hearing had been moved forward by 5 months and that Mert A. was the defendant's lawyer. Upon this, they met with the experienced prosecutor, the President of the Justice Commission, the Chief Public Prosecutor, and other judges and prosecutors. Ayşegül G. prepared a report with these judicial members on June 6, 2023. She explained that she was pressured by the judge. Despite her requesting an acquittal, she took the file to the appellate court to have it overturned against the defendant. She alleged that the Judge then called her and insulted her.

"HE WAS GOSSIPING"

Judge Mehmet Mustafa Ş., on the other hand, argued that a setup was orchestrated against him. He claimed that Prosecutor Ayşegül G., who was appointed to Hatay from Tarsus, told him, “Judge, you make the decisions and tell me, and I will provide an opinion in accordance with your decisions. That was my working method in Tarsus anyway.”

Claiming that Ayşegül G. was constantly gossiping about the female prosecutor and courthouse staff she worked with in Tarsus, Mehmet Mustafa Ş. said, “She said she had filed complaints against 30 judges and prosecutors at the Tarsus Courthouse. She was telling stories about a female prosecutor having an affair with a former minister, and that she was not dismissed for this reason. She was making very grave allegations about the private lives of prosecutors and judges. I kept telling her to focus on her work. Because of this, hostility formed between us. I think it was established that the defendant did not commit the crime, so I gave an acquittal decision.”

Regarding this incident, the reasoned decision of the İskenderun 3rd Heavy Penal Court for the final investigation stated the following:

“It has been determined that Judge Mehmet Mustafa Ş. obtained financial gain by taking bribes from lawyer Mert M., clearly abused his duty by opening a hearing ex officio, and pressured the trial prosecutor to provide an acquittal opinion...”

Following the allegations, Judge Mehmet Mustafa Ş. was suspended from duty.

News Source: 12punto