AK Party submits defense, calls case political

Turkey’s top prosecutor filed a case against the governing AK Party in March, demanding the party’s closure, as well as a ban on 71 former and current members from political activities, over allegations that the party has become a “focal point of anti-secular activities.”

In its introduction, the 98-page defense statement argues that the prosecutor’s indictment was formulated by ideological and political motives rather than legitimate legal concerns. It said the tone of the indictment was too simplistic. It also stated that the indictment was sloppily prepared and that documents that did not belong in the indictment were left in. This is also a criticism the AK Party had made in its preliminary defense.

It also argued that the prosecutor’s understanding of the concepts of democracy and secularism did not live up to the universally accepted understanding of these concepts. It argued that the prosecutor was defending secularism as a lifestyle rather than as a healthy separation between religion and state affairs. The defense testimony argued that the text of the indictment was not a legal text but a document filled with fictitious accusations based on speculative assumptions regarding the future, ignoring the performance of the ruling party and the reality of the country. It further presented evidence that some of the evidence had been produced only after the prosecutor had decided to launch the lawsuit to shut down the AK Party. The indictment strongly denied accusations that the AK Party had became a “focal point of anti-secularist activity,” as the prosecutor claims.

The defense statement also noted that banning the AK Party would be a violation of precedent cases heard by the European Court of Human Rights. It also argued that shutting down the AK Party would be a violation of the freedom to establish organizations.

It reiterated that the AK Party dreams of a “democratic society” and argued that accusations directed at the party’s members individually had no solid foundations.

“All data in this case against us have been interpreted by the Chief Prosecutor’s Office at the expense of freedoms. However, the fundamental principle of universal human rights law is ‘interpretation in favor of freedoms.’ Let alone interpreting data in the favor of evidence, the Chief Prosecutor’s Office has literally used the method of ‘divination’ in assessing the AK Party’s alleged goals and has shown things not likely to happen as likely,” the statement said in its conclusion.

It continued: “There is not a single reason in this case that necessitates sanctions against our party. In fact, the AK Party has not become the focal point of deeds against the law but of serving the nation, human rights, democracy, peace and brotherhood, tolerance and the love of Turkey. The actions of the AK Party in its six years of power have borne testimony to it being the guarantee of the preservation of the democratic, secular and social state of law.” The testimony in conclusion requested that the court, in light of the case presented in the defense statement, throw out the case to close down the AK Party.

The top court last week annulled a government-sponsored bill that would have ended a long-standing headscarf ban on university campuses. Analysts say this indicates that the court will likely rule to shut down the party.

Meanwhile, Government spokesman Cemil Çiçek said the ambiguity in the country due to the closure case against the AK Party is costly. “This is the first time that a closure case against a party in power has been opened. Ambiguity is very costly for the country. We have used our time economically and even though we had until June 29 to present our defense, we submitted it early.”