The Supreme Court’s Board of Chairperson sent a manifesto, in which it critiqued the stance the government and its supporters took towards the closure case filed against the Justice and Development Party (AKP). Presentation of the Strategic Draft of the Judiciary Reform to Olli Rehn, EU commissioner responsible for the enlargement strategy, was among the subjects criticized by the board.
Replying the criticism, the government spokesperson and the Deputy Prime Minister Cemil Çiçek asserted that the Supreme Court’s Board of Chairperson was not a political organ and therefore could not be a side in political discussions: “It is not the job of the judiciary to discuss the activities of the legislative and executive bodies, and the processes about making laws and a constitution.”
The subjects in the manifesto sent out by the Board of Chairperson were as follows:
“The draft of the new constitution was not discussed publicly”
The attacks accelerated: The Board stated that following the discussions and new definitions the fundamental characteristics of the Republic have been subjected to and the acceleration of the attacks upon the judiciary, it was forced to share its opinions and proposals with its Grand People, for which it uses the judicial power.
AKP’s draft for the new Constitution: Leaning upon the majority opinion formed over some amendments, a draft representing the wishes and directives of only one political opinion was prepared and presented to the public as “the best and the most contemporary constitution.” Thereby, the principle of striving for the broadest public agreement in drafting constitutions was violated and thus “the gravest tension has been made part of the agenda at an unexpected time and in an unnecessary manner.”
The unstoppable speed of the Turban change
The Turban (headscarf) change: Although society’s intense and fitting reaction has stopped for the moment the enactment of the draft, the amendments to the 10th and 42nd articles of the Constitution were passed at an unstoppable speed.
The closure case against AKP: The Supreme Court Chief Prosecutor filed a suit against a political party by using legal means, staying within the bounds of the law. However, those who were addressed by this law suit and their supporters ignored this aspect of the process and targeted the Supreme Court Chief Prosecutor with attitudes, discourses and articles that were illogical, illegitimate and even unlawful, aiming to make it the target of society’s reaction and hostility.
The effort to influence the judiciary: Despite article 138 in the Constitution, the attitudes, behaviors and opinions to influence the decision of the judiciary have prevailed at an alarming rate.
Criticizing the AKP attitudes regarding the closure case: Rather than resorting to the usual legal means to defend itself, AKP has chosen to complain to people about the judiciary, attempting to create confrontation between people and this institution.
“The draft of the Judiciary Reform was presented to the EU before the jurists of the country”
The document presented to Rehn: The Strategic Draft of the Judiciary Reform was presented to the EU commissioner responsible for the enlargement strategy and during this process the warning by the Judiciary was completely ignored. Considering its timing, form and content, it has become very clear what kind of judiciary the executive branch wants to see.
To the EU before us: Presenting this reform document to the EU without utilizing the opinions, thoughts and experiences of the Supreme Court was incompatible with the way a responsible State was supposed to behave.
In contradiction with the principle of the independence of the judiciary: Moreover, considering its content, many proposals of this so-called reform package is unacceptable, they are in contradiction on many points with the principle of the independence of the judiciary.
“What is intended is a judiciary on the side of the executive”
All these developments show that the principle of the independence of the judiciary has not been digested yet. Under the rubric of creating a disinterested judiciary lies the attempt to fashion a judiciary protective of the executive and controlled by it. This is the goal! (GG)
