How can a court refer to its president as a suspect? Which befuddled member of the judiciary can conclude that the president can be prosecuted when the Constitution clearly states that the president can only be tried for high treason and nothing else?Besides, the subject of the debate, which is known as the “missing trillion” case, happened more than 10 years ago and has been concluded. So what is the court in Sincan trying to do? It's evident that this is not a legal but a political decision, and unfortunately this isn't an isolated incident.
The politicization of the judiciary, which has been occurring for a long time, has started to damage the public conscience. Inconceivable and unusual decisions taken by the courts have crippled public confidence in the justice system and undermined the judiciary's prestige. The public is concerned because no one knows when and where a member of the judiciary is going to become involved in political speculation. Can't the system remove the problem by itself? The judicial system could resolve these kinds of absurd actions. For example, the Supreme Board of Prosecutors and Judges (HSYK) could intervene when there are such manipulations [of members], but unfortunately the HSYK has also been hit with politicization. Their stance toward the Şemdinli case not only clouded the independence of the judiciary but also sparked an image of a deficient democracy.
They ruined the life of a young prosecutor (Ferhat Sarıkaya) and barred him from the legal profession. The issuance of such a disproportionate punishment destroyed the concept of justice on the one hand and increased the suspicion of tutelage over the judiciary on the other.
On a television program called “32. Gün,” then-Chief of General Staff Gen. Yaşar Büyükanıt said: “During the time the Şemdinli events were unraveling, the head of the police intelligence department went to Parliament and made false statements about me. I reported this to the relevant authorities, and that man was immediately removed from his post.” He admits having contacted other people to have Sabri Uzun removed from his post. This is a critical situation. Although he could have easily explained and justified the situation, Gen. Büyükanıt made it worse.
This inevitably brings to mind a particular question: Might a retired chief of general staff, who at one point requested that a high-level police official be removed from his post have sent a message with a similar request to the HSYK?
I am not writing this to open past accounts or to offend certain statesmen, but to show that the HSYK has wasted so much of its credibility on frivolous issues, that its actions are always open to misunderstanding. The HSYK has been mentioned many times in the Ergenekon case. It has sought near-unlawful alternatives to prevent the efforts of prosecutors and judges heading the case; at least this is the kind of suspicion its image has led to. Unfortunately, at this point, even if they were to take the right step, citizens will be confused because public opinion no longer sees the HSYK as an internal auditing mechanism.
The judiciary is beating itself up. There is an organization called the Judges and Prosecutors Association (YARSAV), which takes a dive into every political issue and fully supports the Ergenekon organization. On top of that, the person heading the organization is still an active prosecutor. How can this be? These kinds of incidents occur in this country and members of the judicial system can take it in. And there is more! The Constitutional Court is openly exceeding its scope of authority. It does not stop at sufficing with its auditing authority with regards to the procedure of the headscarf law but also interferes with its principles as well. There is no need to even bring up the terrifying mistake regarding the 367 quorum decision. Judiciary members prefer to remain silent about this critical mistake. What a scandal!
Is it necessary to continue with a list of examples? The judiciary has kicked the ball into its own net every time with respect to the decisions it has taken on critical events in recent years. The Sincan court's decision on President Gül is the latest example of this wild course of action. Members of the supreme judiciary speak of the judiciary's independence on every level. They are right. It's obvious that there is no problem with the independence of the judiciary in this country, but rather with their objectivity. Objectivity is as important as independence in order to maintain confidence in the justice system. Anytime they find a microphone, the judiciary executives say, “Let's not exhaust the judiciary.” Again they are right. But it is the judiciary itself that is exhausting the judiciary and therefore it is only they themselves who can repair their image.
