The first hearing of the IBB trial in Silivri actually raised a very fundamental question again;
Are courtrooms where the law speaks, or are they the stage for politics?
With 402 defendants on trial and directly affecting the fate of hundreds of people, what was discussed on the first day of this gigantic case was not the legal defenses, but the discussions on the greeting speech, the tension in the courtroom and the requests for recusal of the judge. The picture that emerged in the first hearing created a strong impression that the trial is not only a legal process, but also an attempt to turn it into a political struggle.
The first hearing of the IBB trial in Silivri, which was followed by the public with great interest, was held in a tense atmosphere due to the images of Ekrem İmamoğlu trying to turn the courtroom into a political demonstration area rather than legal defenses.
The first hearing of the trial presented a different picture than expected due to procedural disputes and tensions over the order of the hearing before the defense could begin its arguments on the merits.
When the hearing started after Ekrem İmamoğlu was brought to the courtroom in the morning, İmamoğlu's lawyer requested the court to allow his client to address the audience in the hall and make a short greeting speech.
The court panel rejected this request, stating that there is no practice in criminal procedure for the accused to make an independent greeting speech addressing the audience at the beginning of the hearing.
Following this decision, some spectators in the courtroom reacted with applause and slogans, which disrupted the order of the hearing and the court adjourned the hearing until 13.30 hours to ensure discipline.
When the hearing resumed at 13.30 in the afternoon, Ekrem İmamoğlu's lawyers raised various procedural objections and requested the recusal of the court panel, and the hearing continued within the framework of these procedural discussions.
What is noteworthy about the request for a greeting speech is that it was made by a lawyer.
A lawyer familiar with the practice of criminal proceedings should know that there is no procedural institution in the criminal justice system for the accused to address the audience with a greeting at the beginning of the trial. Therefore, a defense lawyer would not normally be expected to make such a request.
Even if such a request is made by the client, the lawyer should be able to say, “This request is not legally possible, the court will reject it, and it will draw the defense into an unnecessary discussion.”.
Therefore, if a lawyer cannot clearly express this fact to his client, the picture that emerges can no longer be considered not only as a legal defense activity, but also as a process in which the courtroom is tried to be transformed into a political stage.
One of the first comparisons that came to my mind when I heard this request was the American criminal justice system. In the American trial model, which is familiar to the masses through movies and TV series, trials often begin with the opening speeches of the prosecutor and the defense lawyer to the jury. However, the criminal procedure system practiced in Turkey does not have this structure and the functioning of the trial is subject to completely different procedural rules.
In fact, when we look at the investigation and trial process against Ekrem İmamoğlu from the very beginning, it is seen that legal arguments often take a back seat in the public statements made by the defense side.
Today, many people in the public do not even know who Ekrem İmamoğlu's lawyers are or which lawyers are part of his defense team.
With 402 defendants and 143 separate allegations of wrongdoing, does anyone know or hear that the defense has publicly presented a comprehensive legal assessment of the merits of the case? Apparently, such an assessment has not been made public.
In the face of such a large number of allegations, has a concrete defense framework been put forward as to why the accusations are legally invalid? There is no clear answer to this question for the public.
Until today, the most common public discourse has been the following:
The bottom of the file is empty,
That there was no evidence in the case,
Confessors are really slanderers,
Detentions were made in a house raid even though they would have gone to testify if they had been summoned,
That the investigation is political, not legal,
A politician who ran for president with 15.5 million signatures was arrested for this reason...
Most of the public statements have consisted of such political and polemical rhetoric.
The developments in the hearing today seem to have given an important clue about Ekrem İmamoğlu's defense strategy.
The emerging picture suggests that the defense strategy is shaped around three main elements:
- To ensure that the merits of the case are kept in the public eye through procedural disputes,
- Making the rejection of legally unacceptable requests a matter of debate,
- To create a perception in national and international public opinion that “the right to a fair trial has been violated” through these discussions.
However, this case is not an ordinary criminal case.
A total of 402 defendants, including Ekrem İmamoğlu, are on trial in this file.
More than 100 of these defendants are in pre-trial detention. A large number of defendants are subject to judicial control measures and some defendants are subject to arrest warrants.
Considering the scope of the case and the number of defendants, this case is considered to be one of the most comprehensive and massive corruption investigations in the history of the Republic.
The court therefore has before it an extremely large and complex criminal file that concerns the legal fate of not just one individual, but hundreds of people.
The picture that emerged on the first day of the trial in such a far-reaching case was one of tensions and procedural disputes in the courtroom rather than legal defense debates.
At the beginning of the hearing, İmamoğlu wanted to address the audience and the court rejected the request, stating that there is no such practice in criminal procedure. This decision can be considered as a legally appropriate decision.
According to Article 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is the duty of the presiding judge to ensure the order of the hearing.
This provision authorizes the presiding judge in criminal proceedings to maintain order in the courtroom, interrupt, issue warnings and, if deemed necessary, take measures to maintain court discipline.
Nevertheless, as a result of the developments that took place, the atmosphere in the courtroom suddenly changed from that of a trial to that of a political rally.
However, there is a very important fact that should not be overlooked.
This case is not only Ekrem İmamoğlu's case.
Another 401 people are on trial as defendants in the same case.
Each of these people has the right to a trial within a reasonable time. Each one of them has a family, a life and a personal story that has been going on for years, waiting for this process to be concluded as soon as possible.
Therefore, a defendant's decision to announce the day before the hearing that he or she “will not defend” and to make it difficult for the proceedings to proceed with his or her conduct on the day of the hearing is not a choice that concerns only him or herself.
This situation directly affects the right to trial of hundreds of people being tried in the same case.
This is one of the least talked about aspects of the scene unfolding in Silivri today.
In a case with 402 defendants, the transformation of the courtroom into a political demonstration area is a situation that can affect the trial process of not only one person but hundreds of defendants.
The truth that must not be forgotten is this:
Courtrooms are not political rallies.
That is where the law speaks.