Probe on a tip-off: Prove you are not a terrorist

Alican Uludağ
 
Four officers serving at Ankara Judicial Complex suddenly find themselves accused of being “traitors” and “terrorists” following the processing of an “anonymous” tip-off made to the Presidential Communications Centre. The Ankara Justice Commission Department and Ankara Republic Chief Prosecution have launched a disciplinary investigation into the four people, members of the Office Workers Union affiliated to the Confederation of Public Employees' Trade Unions. The four officers have been forced to prepare a defence to prove that they are not “terrorists” and “traitors”. The commission department has also sent the text of the tip-off to the Constitutional Crimes Bureau for a judicial investigation. Under the most recent decree with the force of law, the government placed a “non-denigration right” in the Code of Penal Procedure to prevent people from falling victim to abstract and unfounded tip-offs.
 
A person who applied to the Presidential Communications Centre in November made a “tip-off” about four officers working at Ankara Judicial Complex. It was asserted in the tip-off that, “The officers named Fatma Ekin Narin, Esin Alkan, Turgay Akçay and Kamuran Emir are assisting lawyers and arrested individuals who are members of terrorist organisations like the DHKP-C and MLKP and supporters who come from outside, and are imparting information to these people.” The Presidential Communications Centre conveyed the said tip-off to Ankara Judicial Complex for the necessary action. The Justice Commission Department has launched an administrative investigation into court worker Kamuran Emir, as has Ankara Chief Prosecution into the other three officers. Both units have requested defences from the judicial complex workers. Kamuran Emir has submitted a defence to the Commission Department.
 
Throw mud and some will stick
 
Emir pointed out that the tip-off, which contained absolutely no name or address, was contrary to the Law on Exercising the Right to Petition. Emir recalled that petitions that lack name and address details are not to be processed, and, saying, “It appears that the tip-off and complaint in the application text serving as the grounds for the investigation into me are abstract, the allegation is not based on serious findings and documents and the petitioner’s forename, surname and signature are absent. There is also no verified information in the complaint notification as to when, where and to which party or parties the alleged acts were committed,” called on the investigation into him to be scrapped. Emir, stressing that the informer had acted “with the logic of throwing mud so that some would stick,” recounted how he had participated at numerous press statements and actions in line with decisions of the trade union of which he was a member. Emir said, “The actions and events at which I participated involved no violence and amounted to the exercising of a statutory and democratic right. It is enough that my other colleagues named in the complaint petition are also members of the same union to show what it is wished to achieve with the complaint.” Emir called on an investigation to be launched into the informer for the offence of defamation.