Constitutional change needed to avoid DTP court crisis

Pundits say the only way to avoid the crisis and save Turkey from the humiliation of dragging deputies to a courtroom might be constitutional change.

Demirtaş and Ayna have been called to testify in court regarding earlier statements both made which, Prosecutor Mustafa Bilgili claims, amount to separatism and promoting the cause of the terrorist Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK). The two deputies are not being protected by their parliamentary immunity under an interpretation of Article 14 of the Constitution that holds immunity being ignored in cases of “crimes directed at the inseparable integrity of the state, country and the nation” if the court cases are opened before the individuals are elected to Parliament. The court's decision shows that the prosecution's argument, which holds that promoting the cause of a terrorist organization, falls under the category defined in Article 14.

The court ruling comes at a time when the government is working on a package -- referred to as the Kurdish initiative or the democratic initiative -- that seeks to improve rights and freedoms of the country's Kurds for the ultimate aim of solving Turkey's long-standing Kurdish question peacefully. It is feared that a crisis involving the DTP deputies might axe the process.

The court will adjourn on Dec. 29, when the two deputies may be brought forcefully to court by the police. Demirtaş and Ayna stand accused of “promoting the cause of a terrorist organization” in two separate cases over speeches they made during party demonstrations.

DTP leader Ahmet Türk is also facing similar charges over past statements. In yesterday's hearing, Prosecutor Bilgili also demanded a similar ruling by the court. The court, however, said an earlier notice sent to Türk had not been delivered due to a change of address, and ruled to serve him again and notify him of the time and place of the next hearing as well as send him a copy of the indictment.

In initial remarks, Türk said the DTP did not have anything to lose but that Turkey had too much to lose if DTP deputies are brought to court by police force.

“We want the removal of parliamentary immunity, but we are now being pushed into a position in which we are being forcibly excluded from Parliament, simply because of keeping the Kurdish question on Turkey's agenda,” he said.

Türk added that the decision of the court is an attempt to damage a sense of reason and compromise the sides are presently trying to establish.

Türk said only Parliament and the parliament speaker could be direct counterparts to talk to for the DTP. “The Minister of Justice and the parliament speaker should come together to evaluate the situation. The Constitutional Commission and the Justice Commission in Parliament have to find a solution to this problem,” he said.

Ergun Özbudun, an expert on constitutional law, also stated that Parliament could indeed tackle the problem. Özbudun said that in order to prevent forced testimonies from DTP deputies, Constitutional Articles 14 and 83 -- the article on parliamentary immunity -- should be amended. “These two articles are open to abuse against individual rights and freedoms. These two articles reflect the repressive spirit of the Sept. 12 [1980] military coup,” he said.

Burhan Kuzu, the chairperson of the parliamentary Constitutional Committee from the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party), said the only way to keep DTP deputies from being brought to a courtroom by force is through a constitutional amendment.

“When we suggested a new constitution in 2007, we wanted to remove these articles. But now we don't have the majority to change the Constitution, even if the DTP joins us. We know that the Nationalist Movement Party [MHP] is against that. In this case, we have to convince the Republican People's Party [CHP].”

However, it remains unclear if a constitutional amendment can be proposed before Dec. 29, the day of the next hearing.

Emine Ayna said she had been served the court summons for yesterday's trial but had chosen not to attend. She further said she had no intention to attend any hearing in the case. “This is a scandal. They have their facts distorted and we want to expose their twisted mentality by not going to court. We are not hiding behind our immunity, nor are we afraid of the consequences of the court proceedings. We have been imprisoned for our opinions in the past. But what is going on here is against democracy and we are trying to show this to the public. The court ruling to have police forcibly take us to testify is discrimination, and we want to expose this,” she said.

“There are various court cases against a large number of deputies opened on charges of corruption or similar accusations, but you get this [kind of ruling] only for this case and that is a shame for democracy.”

She said the DTP was for the elimination of immunity for deputies altogether, except in cases of speeches made and actions taken in deeds in relation to one's post as a deputy.

“There have been some suggestions to find a way through a back alley for a solution to this crisis, but for a permanent solution, legal changes should be made.”

Another hearing, in which DTP Diyarbakır deputy Aysel Tuğluk is the suspect facing charges over similar accusations, is scheduled for today. A similar ruling to bring her to court by police court might come out of today's hearing.

Tuğluk said yesterday's court ruling was a manifestation of the state of the Kurdish question in Turkey, and also an indication of how politicized the judiciary is.

Tuğluk also said that as the DTP they are not afraid to give court statements, but they had to address discrimination they were facing.

She also highlighted that Turkey is passing through a new period in which the government is looking for a solution to problems facing Kurds, saying such decisions would only lead to lesser confidence between the sides.

“Such a move can lead to serious problems; such a decision will not contribute to the settlement of the Kurdish problem,” Tuğluk said.

Many fear the DTP may face a fate similar to that of its predecessor, the Democracy Party (DEP), which was shut down in 1994 and whose deputies were arrested. One month before the closure of the DEP on May 11, 1994, the People's Democracy Party (HADEP) was established. However, its officials were arrested on charges of harboring and supporting the PKK, and the party was closed down in 2003.