Nine Cases, Three Acquittals: What He Says About the Judiciary
Fact
The period under discussion is this: the Furkan Foundation operation of 30 January 2018 and the case files arising from it. The figures below belong to the TV5 broadcast of 11 December 2019, that is, to the situation on that day.
Alparslan Kuytul presents the picture as follows:
- 9 cases opened against him,
- acquittal in 3 of them,
- 6 files still ongoing as of that day.
Regarding the files on which the arrest was based he adds this: the investigation had been split into two files and he was released at the first hearing in both of them. He regards this as the summary of his own situation: "There is no crime here. Everyone saw this."
He divides the six ongoing files in two as well. He considers it normal that two of them are dragging on. As for the remaining four, he is of the opinion that the delay has no legal reason: "They are no longer concluding my trials." His reasoning is that the files which would be concluded would have a positive effect on the ongoing ones.
The answer he gives when asked about the independence of the judiciary carries no claim of proof — he says so himself:
"Especially for important people, the instructions come from above; but can you prove this? Of course you cannot, but you see it very clearly."
This page deals only with the 2018–2019 files and the figures here are valid for 11 December 2019. Today there is a separate and ongoing judicial process; no information on this page relates to that process.
Which files, which date?
All the figures on this page belong to a single day: 11 December 2019. On that day Alparslan Kuytul took part in a live TV5 broadcast and described the then-current state of the files arising from the Furkan Foundation operation of 30 January 2018. Six days had passed since his release.
Tying the figures to a date is essential, because a judicial process is not static: both the number of cases and the number of those concluded change over time.
The picture on that day
| As of 11 December 2019 | Number |
|---|---|
| Cases opened against him | 9 |
| Concluded with acquittal | 3 |
| Ongoing files | 6 |
| — those whose delay is regarded as normal | 2 |
| — those said to be held up without reason | 4 |
When the figures are added up, this is what emerges: of the nine cases, the three that have been concluded all three ended in acquittal. That is, as of that day there is no file closed with a conviction; the rest are still being heard.
Two files, two releases at the first hearing
The investigation on which the arrest was based had been split into two separate files. Kuytul says he was released at the first hearing in both files.
What this means is this: at the session where it saw the defendant for the first time and discussed the file in a hearing for the first time, the court saw no need for detention to continue. Kuytul regards this as the shortest summary of his own situation: "I was released at the first hearing in both of them."
Why are four files not being concluded?
He divides the six ongoing files in two. He says he considers it normal that two of them are dragging on. As for the remaining four, he thinks the delay has no legal reason and ties this to a rationale: if these files are concluded, they will have a positive effect on the other ongoing files.
"They are no longer concluding my trials."
A distinction has to be drawn here: the number of cases and the acquittals are information that can be verified by looking at the files. That the four files are being held up deliberately, on the other hand, is Kuytul's own assessment. This page does not present the two with equal weight.
The matter of the secret witness
In the same broadcast he objects to the secret witness code-named Aralık, who was heard in the case in which he is accused of founding a criminal organisation. The basis of his objection is the statement the witness gave to the police; Kuytul says he has that statement in hand and conveys its content as follows: the person said "I am not a witness" and stated that he had not seen the events but was relating what he had heard.
His second objection concerns the subject matter of what was recounted: what the secret witness said are Kuytul's political speeches on the internet; he has no statement concerning the foundation, the cash box or the receipts.
The third concerns procedure: neither he nor his lawyer was able to put a question to the witness at the hearing.
In his own words the conclusion is this: "He is not giving testimony, he is acting as an informer." Whether a statement that is not based on eyewitness observation and to which no question can be put may be counted as evidence was the only question he raised in court.
The sentence in the reasoning for the arrest
Among the things he says about the judiciary, the example he repeats most often is the reasoning of his own arrest decision: it is written there that trying to steer the favour of the people through social media without founding a political party is incompatible with the ordinary course of life. Kuytul's answer comes as a question: do the journalists, jurists and academics who discuss the country's agenda on television have a party?
This reasoning is dealt with separately: the "if he wants to do politics let him found a party" claim.
When he says "the judiciary is not independent"
When Kuytul utters this sentence he does not claim to have a document in hand; on the contrary, he says himself that it cannot be proven:
"Especially for important people, the instructions come from above; but can you prove this? Of course you cannot, but you see it very clearly."
This is the most outspoken point of the page: there is an opinion, and it is presented as an opinion. What remains in the reader's hands is the part that can be verified — nine cases, three acquittals, release at the first hearing in both files.
The page deals only with the files arising from the operation of 30 January 2018 and the figures here are valid for 11 December 2019. Today there is a separate and ongoing judicial process; no information on this page relates to that process.