“I find the Constitutional Court's ruling odd. There are claims that Paksüt leaked information to third parties about a closure case against the Justice and Development Party [AK Party]. The court acknowledged the leaks but did not feel any sanctions were necessary,” said former Justice Minister Hikmet Sami Türk.The Constitutional Court announced last week the findings of an inquiry that was launched into Paksüt over his phone conversations with suspects in the investigation into Ergenekon, a clandestine gang charged with plotting to overthrow the government. According to the court's findings, claims against him were groundless, lacking concrete evidence. The court thus concluded that an investigation should not be launched into Paksüt. The inquiry had been launched in May after it was discovered that Paksüt had discussed a closure case against the ruling AK Party with Ergenekon suspects.
A criminal complaint was filed against Paksüt on the grounds that he had provided third parties with detailed information about several cases under deliberation in the Constitutional Court, including the AK Party closure case. If an investigation had been launched, a commission made up of three members of the court would have been formed to carry out the investigation, which could have resulted in Paksüt's expulsion from the top court.
“If confidential information about an ongoing judicial process is leaked to third parties [by a court member], then he should be subjected to some sort of sanction, which could be a motion of censure or a disciplinary penalty,” Türk added.
The court's decision drew the ire of its members, as well. Constitutional Court judge Serruh Kaleli stressed in a seven-page statement that the decision was quite flawed. Kaleli underlined that Paksüt had abused his authority when he leaked information to third parties about ongoing trials, saying he was aiming to create chaos in society with the leaked information.
“Paksüt's phone conversations were not recorded in an unlawful matter. They were gathered [by Ergenekon prosecutors] during a legal wiretapping. The content of the conversations may serve as evidence that could lead to the launch of an investigation. Our court, however, has put the accusation [against Paksüt] under doubt as it ruled from the very beginning that the conversations were wiretapped illegally,” Kaleli added.
