TURKISH JUDICIARY LASHES OUT AT GOVERNMENT - AND

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 ANKARA 000979 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/22/2017 TAGS: PGOV TU SUBJECT: TURKISH JUDICIARY LASHES OUT AT GOVERNMENT - AND SENDS MESSAGE TO CONSTITUTIONAL COURT Classified By: Political Counselor Janice Weiner for reasons 1.4(b),(d) ¶1. (C) Summary and comment. In a May 21 statement, the Court of Appeals (Yargitay) publicly accused the government of pressuring the judiciary while two critical cases are pending, one of them the closure case against the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP). The court criticized the government for discussing its draft judicial reform proposal with EU representatives before consulting with the judiciary, and restated several charges contained in the closure case indictment. AKP quickly fired back, slamming the Yargitay statement as lacking in democratic and legal legitimacy and an interference in a pending case that undermines judicial impartiality and erodes public trust in the judiciary. Mirroring the party's blunt reply to the military's April 27, 2007 "e-memorandum", AKP leaders accused the Yargitay of overstepping its authority by interfering with legislative and executive power. The Council of State (Danistay) administrative court joined the fray May 22, issuing its own statement backing the Yargitay. The Yargitay and Danistay declarations appear to hold a message for the Constitutional Court, now deliberating the Chief Prosecutor's indictment charging AKP with anti-secularist activities, as well as a petition to annul constitutional amendments designed to lift Turkey's headscarf ban at universities. ¶2. (C) The surprisingly public row reignites already heated tensions, which may be exactly the intent of judges who, in a December poll, stated their primary task is to protect the state. Some call the Yargitay statement a judicial coup attempt, released in response to domestic and international criticism, which "outs" the judiciary as a political player. At the same time, it seems to pit court against court, publicly exposing concerns the Constitutional Court may not close AKP or annul the headscarf amendments. It may also be the first salvo in the judiciary's fight against EU-required -- and much needed -- judicial reforms viewed as weakening its traditional influence. As it publicly joins the battle, the judiciary itself may be doing more than anyone to damage its credibility. End summary and comment. ¶3. (C) The Court of Appeals Department Heads Council's May 21 statement, triggered in part by concerns about the government's draft judicial reform proposal presented to EU representatives May 9, was an unexpectedly public rant against AKP. Accusing the government of systematically attacking the judiciary to undermine the Republic's founding values, the declaration stated, "The latest developments are enough to show the judiciary's independence has not been accepted, and that there are insistent and systematic efforts, under the false pretense of ensuring judicial impartiality, to create a judiciary that supports, protects and is audited by the executive branch." The statement pledged to continue to "pursue the independence of the judiciary" on behalf of the Turkish nation. ¶4. (SBU) The Yargitay declaration claimed the government behaved irresponsibly by discussing its Judiciary Reform Strategy proposal with EU Enlargement Commissioner Olli Rehn before consulting with the judiciary, which rejects the draft as impinging on judicial independence. "Instead of defending itself in accordance with the law, the government denounces the judiciary to the people, it assumes the right to shape everything to its will by the consent of the people, and tries to influence the Turkish judiciary by garnering the support of foreign people and institutions, all to get a positive result in the closure case," according to the statement. Yargitay President Hasan Gerceker, claiming they were not trying to meddle in politics, stressed the judiciary's right to comment on the reform proposal. "We are reacting to the government's decision to ignore the judiciary in shaping judicial reforms," he said, adding Turkey's EU bid will not end the judiciary's independence. ¶5. (C) Reiterating charges contained in the closure case indictment against AKP, the Yargitay railed against AKP's attempt at comprehensive constitutional reform, begun last fall and stalled by inept handling of the process. "A draft was prepared to change the whole framework, under the disguise of preparing the 'best and most contemporary' constitution," the statement claimed, charging AKP failed to seek input from a wide cross-section of society. Despite its unsuccessful attempt at broad reform, the statement noted, ANKARA 00000979 002 OF 002 AKP pushed through two constitutional amendments aimed at lifting the headscarf ban, leading to the filing of the March 14 closure case indictment. ¶6. (SBU) Many see the Yargitay's restatement of the case against AKP as evidence the declaration is a veiled message to the Constitutional Court not to be swayed by pressure to penalize AKP without closing the party. Pro-AKP columnists suggested the statement's release was triggered by Constitutional Court Chief Justice Kilic's May 20 comment that the closure case ruling would strengthen Turkey's democracy, secularism and judiciary, coupled with the Constitutional Court rapporteur's May 16 recommendation that the Court reject a petition to annul the headscarf amendments for lack of jurisdiction. ¶7. (SBU) Calling the Yargitay statement politically motivated and unnecessary, Justice Minister Mehmet Ali Sahin refuted the accusations and emphasized judicial reform and the draft constitution are still being debated. "Neither the judiciary nor the government is under the control of the other, and they should not be," Sahin stated, adding the Justice Ministry is working to ensure the strict separation of the executive and judicial branches. After conferring for an hour, PM Erdogan, DPM Cemil Cicek and Sahin criticized the court's statement as lacking in legitimacy and eroding public trust in the judiciary. Cicek said the Yargitay had lost its impartiality by interfering in a pending legal matter in violation of Constitution Article 138 and was acting like an opposition party. AKP Group Deputy Chairman Nihat Ergun told the press the statement reflects a lack of understanding of the separation of powers concept. "Turkey still has a long distance to cover in terms of internalizing the democratic regime and realizing the principle of the separation of powers," he said. ¶8. (C) AKP Vice Chair Mehmet Dengir Mir Firat conveyed the party's frustration to us. After rejecting more combative responses to the closure case in favor of defusing tensions and normalizing relations with some state institutions, AKP was not expecting the Yargitay's broadside, which he characterized as counter to the judiciary's constitutional purview. Parliament Speaker Koksal Toptan's "third way" solution to AKP's closure was finding support as a way to warn the party short of the drastic step of closing it. "We know how to fight back but we are thinking of Turkey first," he said, pursuing strategies that may hurt AKP to avoid disrupting the economy. "It takes two to achieve consensus," he noted; if it is only one side, it is called surrender. "They want us to disappear." ¶9. (SBU) The Danistay Department Heads Council joined the fray May 22, issuing a statement backing their Court of Appeals counterparts and noting the Yargitay statement was made in the interest of judicial independence. Stating it is neither political nor a separation of powers violation for the judiciary to comment on matters concerning judicial issues, the Danistay stressed that protecting the Republic's basic principles is the judiciary's essential function. Echoing the Yargitay declaration, the Danistay also criticized the government for sharing the draft reform package before consulting with the courts, and said the government should have reacted negatively to EU statements about the closure case. ¶10. (SBU) Opposition Republican People's Party (CHP) and Nationalist Action Party (MHP) urged respect for the Yargitay's statement, as did the Democratic Left Party (DSP) and the Motherland Party (ANAVATAN). MHP leader Devlet Bahceli claimed the Yargitay statement came at a time of increased attacks, led by the government, on the judiciary. He viewed the statement as an appropriate way for the judiciary to defend its independence, and called on President Gul to bring legislative, executive and judicial leaders together to resolve the dispute, an offer President Gul reportedly is considering. Visit Ankara's Classified Web Site at http://www.intelink.sgov.gov/wiki/Portal:Turk ey WILSON