Courtrooms are places where the law speaks, not politics. They are not places where parties shout slogans, gather applause or send political messages.
In recent days, Ekrem İmamoğlu's request “I would like to make a greeting speech” before the start of the hearing has brought about a serious debate in this respect.
The order in which the parties speak in the courtroom is fixed. First the indictment is read, then the identification of the accused, then the defense. The accused will of course speak, and may even speak at length if he/she wishes. However, this speech is a defense speech, not a greeting to the court or the public. Because the courtroom is a place of judgment, not a podium.
Therefore, it is clear that the request for a “greeting speech” has no legal equivalent. This is also known by Ekrem İmamoğlu's lawyers. Despite this, such a request inevitably raises the following question: Is the aim really to make a defense or to turn the courtroom into a political stage?
The court panel is obliged to intervene in behavior that may disrupt the order of the proceedings. Otherwise, the proceedings lose their seriousness.
In many decisions of the Court of Cassation, it is stated that attitudes that would disrupt the order of the court should be prevented. This is because if the courtroom becomes a platform where the parties give political messages, the sense of justice will be damaged.
It is also remembered that Ekrem İmamoğlu took off his jacket and tie in a previous hearing and created a different atmosphere in the courtroom. Can such behavior be seen as part of the defense, or are they symbolic gestures aimed at changing the atmosphere in the courtroom? This is where the real debate begins.
It is not just about the behavior of one person. The real issue is how the court panel will approach such situations. If a “greeting speech” is allowed in the courtroom, it will become a precedent in the future. Tomorrow another defendant will make the same request. Someone else may even go further and try to turn the courtroom into a political tribunal.
One of the most fundamental principles of law is equality. Everyone is equal before the court. Neither political identity, office, nor popularity entitles one person to any privilege over other citizens. If a practice does not apply to all citizens, it should not apply to anyone.
It is therefore very clear what courts must do: Adhere to the rules of procedure and maintain the discipline of the trial. The defendant presents his defense, the lawyers present their legal arguments, the court evaluates the evidence and makes a decision. This is how the law works.
Courtrooms of law, not applause,
They are places where evidence speaks, not slogans.