Turkey: Reporter Faces 12 Years in
Prison for Article on Alleged Judicial Improprieties
His Excellency Bulent Ecevit
Prime Minister
The Republic of Turkey
Basbakanlik
06573 Ankara, Turkey
VIA FACSIMILE + 90-312-417-0476
Your Excellency:
The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) is deeply alarmed by the prosecution of Metin Munir, a free-lance journalist for a number of newspapers, including the Turkish daily Sabah and the London-based Financial Times.
Munir was charged earlier this month with insulting the judiciary--a crime under Article 159 of Turkey's Penal Code that carries a penalty of up to 12 years in prison. He appeared before the Bakirkoy Criminal Court on February 6, when the case was adjourned until early May 2001.
The charge against the journalist was initiated at the behest of the Ministry of Justice and came in retaliation for an article by Munir that appeared on May 10, 2000, in the now-defunct daily Yeni Binyil. Munir's article harshly criticized the appointment of Oktar Cakir as chief prosecutor of the State Security Court. He questioned how the Supreme Council of Judges and Prosecutors, the body responsible for electing the chief prosecutor, could have appointed Cakir to his post when it had been notified by the Ministry of Interior of Cakir's involvement in unspecified "malfeasance."
Cakir was ultimately forced to step down after a traffic accident exposed the prosecutor's apparent relationship with a known criminal. But Munir suggested that Cakir's initial appointment raised troubling questions about the administration of justice in Turkey.
CPJ views the prosecution of Metin Munir as a grave attack on press freedom in Turkey. Prosecuting journalists and threatening them with imprisonment for the publication of news and opinion represents a flagrant violation of fundamental and universally accepted norms for free expression. As a nonpartisan organization of journalists dedicated to the defense of our colleagues around the world, CPJ respectfully urges Your Excellency to examine all possible legal remedies to ensure that that the charges against Munir are dropped.
Regrettably, past commitments by Turkish government officials to respect basic press freedoms and to reform or do away with laws used to punish expression have not been fulfilled. Turkish authorities remain unrestrained in using Article 159 and other repressive criminal statutes to stifle critical journalism in Turkey. Once again, we urge Your Excellency's government to initiate comprehensive legal reform immediately, so that criminal prosecutions may no longer be used to punish expression.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter. We look forward to a reply at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
Ann K. Cooper
Executive Director
His Excellency Bulent Ecevit
Prime Minister
The Republic of Turkey
Basbakanlik
06573 Ankara, Turkey
VIA FACSIMILE + 90-312-417-0476
First, let us take another look at the chronology of this terrifying event:
Interior Minister Saadettin Tantan tells Justice Minister Hikmet Sami Turk that Prosecutor Oktar Cakir is "involved in malfeasance."
The Justice Minister then conveys this information to the Supreme Council of Judges and Prosecutors, which will elect the new chief prosecutor of the State Security Court.
The council, however, ignores the information and elects Cakir as the chief prosecutor.
In other words, a majority of this council, which is comprised of the most senior prosecutors and judges in Turkey, appoints someone to one of the highest positions in the Turkish legal system knowing full well that he was involved in malfeasance. If this is the norm of the justice industry, does this mean that more than half of the judges and prosecutors in this country are...what? What do you call people who elect a prosecutor known to be involved in malfeasance as chief prosecutor? My Turkish is not good enough to find the right adjective.
The most terrifying aspect of all this is that Cakir would have become the chief prosecutor if not for a traffic accident. He would have been working for one of the most important courts of Turkey even though he was known to lack the necessary moral foundation for the job. [Editor's Note: Shortly after Cakir was elected chief prosecutor, he was involved in a traffic accident on May 2 while riding in a car driven by a wanted criminal. The Supreme Council then sacked him and he retired rather than take a minor job in the provinces.]
And also:
Those who voted for Prosecutor Cakir did not resign and were not fired even though they knew he lacked the necessary moral foundation for this job. I glanced at the major newspapers today, and despite the fact that the traffic accident happened hardly a week ago, there was not a word about it except in a column by Fatih Altayli in the newspaper Hürriyet. Has this incident been forgotten? Has the case been closed? Isn't anyone asking questions?
Such as:
- Who are the other prosecutors and judges who collaborated with Cakir in
the malfeasance he is accused of? What does the minister of justice plan
to do about them?
- What exactly were Cakir's misdeeds? When did they happen? Over how many
years?
- How valid are the past cases that Cakir prosecuted? When he did not pursue
charges, were the people he let off really innocent and were those he
successfully prosecuted really guilty? How valid were the indictments
prepared in his office? Is anyonejust a single solitary personconsidering
investigating these old cases at all?
- What is the government planning to do about the Mafia of prosecutors
and judges at the highest levels of the judiciary who subvert justice
in exchange for money?
And the last question bothering me involves my own profession:
Why didn't Interior Minister Tantan leak the information about Cakir to the press at the same time he informed the justice minister? This would have been the best way to prevent his election as chief prosecutor before the traffic accident that exposed him. Is it because there was not a single journalist or newspaper he could trust?
Maybe.
We journalists criticize everyone, but the number of us involved in malfeasance is not less than in any other profession.
END