Lawsuit for the cancellation of the trustee appointment from Ahmet Özer: Here is Özer's defense...

The hearing for the "trustee cancellation" lawsuit filed by CHP Esenyurt Mayor Ahmet Özer, who was arrested and removed from office and replaced by a trustee, was held in Istanbul. 

Taking the floor in court, Özer evaluated the practice not only in terms of his own person but as a violation of the people's faith in the ballot box and the constitutional order.

In his defense, Özer stated the following:

“I am not here today just on my own behalf. I am here today for the restoration of the violated Articles 2, 5, and 127 of our Constitution. I am here to stand against those who think they can interpret and apply laws as they wish simply because they are in power. Today, I am here for the 156 municipalities where trustees have been appointed. I am here for Şişli and Ovacık.”

ÖZER'S DEFENSE

Speaking at the hearing, Özer's defense is as follows:

1-I am not here today just on my own behalf. 

I am here for the rights and law of the 1.5 million people of Esenyurt.

2- I am not here today just on my own behalf. 

I am here for the 228 thousand people who voted for me, for their right to vote and be elected. I entered with the voice, words, and greetings of 227,608 voters. This figure is not just a number; this figure is a people. This figure is will, sovereignty, and a constitutional decision. 

The will I represent is not just that of a political party, but the will of those who have been marginalized, unheard, and despised for years. 

What is at stake here today is not just an individual violation of rights, but a social usurpation, the shaking of the constitutional order, and the breaking of the people's faith in their future. Because the issue is not just a seat; it is that the owner of that seat was determined by the will of the people. And that will has been usurped by an administrative act, by alleging the existence of an investigation file.

3- I am not here today just on my own behalf. 

I am here today for the restoration of the violated Articles 2, 5, and 127 of our Constitution. 

4- I am not here today just on my own behalf. 

I am here today to correct the wrongs of those who think they can arbitrarily interpret and apply laws as they wish simply because they are in power. 

5- I am not here today just on my own behalf.

I am here today for the 156 municipalities where trustees have been appointed. I am here for Şişli and Ovacık.

Therefore, the decision you make here today will be a milestone in terms of Turkish Administrative Law. 

IN CONCLUSION

I am here to protect the rights of the voters of Esenyurt Municipality, which has the largest population in Turkey. The decision you make in this case will concern whether the rights of nearly a million citizens will be violated. For this reason, you can assume that hundreds of thousands of people are intervening in this case alongside me...

Furthermore, considering the ongoing peace process, the result of this case will be a historic decision in terms of concerning other municipalities where trustees have been appointed to date. In addition, it will greatly ease the hands of the political parties conducting the peace process (both the government implementing the trustee practices and the parties subjected to these practices). 

Mr. President,

Honorable Judges,

1-THE MEANING OF THE ELECTION AND CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES ARE UNDER THREAT.

“JUSTICE IN PARTICIPATION”

An election is not just a procedure; it is a sacred declaration of will through which the people exercise their sovereignty. This declaration is based on the principle expressed in Article 6 of our Constitution: “Sovereignty belongs unconditionally to the nation.” The most concrete manifestation of sovereignty is the right to vote, regulated by Articles 67 and 127. Article 127 is clear: Local government bodies are elected by the people and can only be temporarily removed from office due to crimes related to their duties.

However, today, these constitutional guarantees have been reduced to patterns written in a single line; the will shown by the people at the ballot box has been rendered void by administrative acts. The administrator elected by the people has been removed from office by a mere administrative interpretation. This situation is not only a violation of the constitution; it is also an intervention against the people's reason, honor, and sovereignty.

The certificate of election in my hand is not a piece of paper, but the sealed will of the people. Trampling on that certificate is not just the disregard of an individual, but the constitutional right of 227,608 citizens. 

An office obtained through election is not just a political authority, but a social contract made with the people. The unilateral termination of this contract without the people's approval is an unacceptable situation not only in terms of political science but also in terms of moral and democratic values.

This is the meaning of the ballot box: The people choose whom they want, and only the people remove them from office. When this principle is shaken, the roof of democracy collapses, and representation becomes hollow. 

2. THE USURPATION OF DEMOCRATIC LEGITIMACY IS AT STAKE.

“CONSENT AND 3 FORMS OF GOVERNANCE”

 Democracy begins with respecting the will of the people, allowing the representative of that will to perform their duties freely, and most importantly, recognizing election results. 

However, today, democratic legitimacy is being destroyed by the removal of administrators elected by the people based on abstract accusations that have not gone through a judicial process. Such a practice does not foster a democratic social order, but a bureaucratic tutelage regime. Because in a system where the appointee replacing the elected official draws power not from the people, but from the approval of the center, the people are reduced to mere spectators.

History is full of shameful examples where the will of the people was usurped by appointees.

    • 20th-century Latin America

    • Nazi Germany

    • The Soviet system

This situation is the invalidation of the will of an entire people, not just one administrator. When a mayor is removed from office, it is not just a district governor or a governor who sits in their place; a shadow administration that exercises will on behalf of the people, a central tutelage, is established.

Today, here, Turkey's democracy is on trial as much as the future of Esenyurt. This is clearly the ground for the transition from a constitutional order to an authoritarian regime.

2. TRUSTEE PRACTICES MEAN SOCIAL DISCONNECTION.

“156 TRUSTEES APPOINTED SINCE 2016” THE BALLOT BOX HAS BEEN RENDERED VOID.

This situation has broken the voter's faith in the ballot box, weakened civic consciousness, and deeply shaken political participation.

With this process, the voter's will has not only been bruised; it has been mortgaged by systematic and administrative mechanisms. Removing an elected official from office without a court decision and making an appointment in their place is the de facto invalidation of the people's right to govern themselves. The voter has learned that no matter which candidate they vote for, this election can be rendered void depending on the discretion of the center; therefore, elections have been reduced to a formality, and democracy to a hollow label.

-CIVIC CONSCIOUSNESS HAS BEEN DAMAGED

-SENSE OF BELONGING HAS WEAKENED 

-SOCIAL DISCONNECTION HAS OCCURRED

When a people go to the ballot box repeatedly and their preference is ignored each time, the result is a decline in civic consciousness, a weakening of the sense of belonging, and a deepening of social disconnection.

These practices have reinforced the belief among voters that “those who come with the ballot box cannot leave with the ballot box,” and have given rise to the feeling that elections have lost their meaning. Yet in democracies, the ballot box is not just a tool for voting; it is a mechanism for the people to exercise their right to have a say in their own future.

4. MY PERSONAL DEDICATION AND BURDEN OF REPRESENTATION SHOW EVERYTHING.

7 YEARS OF SERVICE IN 7 MONTHS!

I did not aspire to this duty out of a love for office, but out of a belief in being the voice of a people. 

For me, being a mayor was a profession of touching the people from the closest point, sharing their troubles, and growing with their hope. 

I did not say day or night. I walked in every neighborhood of Esenyurt, I talked to the people on every street. 

That election night... I met the eyes of hundreds of thousands of people. And today, I am forced to tell those people, “Your mayor is still with you, but his authority has been taken away.” 

5. THIS ACT IS DEVOID OF LEGAL BASIS AND FULL OF CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS. 

CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 127

Our Constitution has also clearly set this limit. According to Article 127, local government bodies are determined by election and can only be temporarily removed from office due to crimes related to their duties. 

-STATE OF EMERGENCY COUP PERIOD DECREE-LAW NO. 674

-MUNICIPALITY LAW ARTICLES 45 AND 46 ADDED

These are the regulations added to Articles 45 and 46 of the Municipality Law with Decree-Law No. 674 issued during the State of Emergency. 

6. I WANT TO MAKE A CALL IN THE NAME OF LAW, IN THE NAME OF THE PEOPLE.

Honorable Court,

Today, before you is not just an administrative act, but a vital issue concerning the people's constitutional rights and their trust in democracy. This lawsuit is not just a technical request for cancellation regarding the removal of a mayor. This lawsuit is a test of whether the people's will is reflected in the administration and whether the democratic state of law is still valid.

I am a professor of political science and sociology. For years, I taught popular sovereignty, democratic legitimacy, and theories of representation in classrooms. Today, I am experiencing how those teachings are ignored in the field, and how those who come with the ballot box are removed from office by methods outside the will. And my expectation from this court is not just a legal evaluation, but a decision taken with historical and social responsibility.

This lawsuit is one of the cases that will determine the future of democracy, not of an individual.

I am defending not only my duty but the votes, faith, and constitutional rights of my people. As I leave this courtroom, my only expectation is this:

May the law protect the will of the people.

May the court uphold democracy.

May the decision be made in the name of the people.

"DID I BECOME A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION MEMBER ONLY WHEN I BECAME MAYOR?"

I am very uncomfortable with this talk of a terrorist organization. I have held many positions until today; I am someone whose opinion was sought by the Speaker of the Parliament himself in 2011 and 2012, who is now being confronted with these things. I am someone who has represented Turkey at home and abroad. While doing all these things, I was not a member of a terrorist organization, but did I become one when I became the Mayor of Esenyurt? 

I am in court for the first time in my life, and I am very sad.

If I were not a mayor today, the government would have said to me within this peace process, ‘come and support us’

News Source: 12punto