Is İstanbul the battleground of the judiciary?

Politics Service

On Monday, İstanbul witnessed two intriguing judicial cases. The first involved the appeal process regarding the detention of Ayşe Barım, the owner of ID Consultancy. As previously reported, Barım’s lawyers filed an appeal against her detention, which was upheld by the court, leading to a release order.

However, before Barım could be released from prison, the İstanbul Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office objected to the decision, resulting in a new ruling for her re-arrest. Legal experts have pointed out that the legal basis for this objection remains unclear, emphasizing concerns over violations of legal security and the right to freedom.

As all of this unfolds, Son TV, the media outlet that consistently breaks news on detentions, arrests, and operations, once again delivered an exclusive report, announcing that the Council of Judges and Prosecutors (HSK) had launched an investigation into the judge who ruled for Ayşe Barım’s release. Son TV framed the story under the headline: "Investigation into the Illegal Release."

OPERATION ALLEGATIONS AGAINST BEYKOZ MUNICIPALITY

By the end of the day, Barım remained in prison while the judge who ordered her release became the subject of an investigation. Questions persist regarding how the Chief Prosecutor's objection reached the High Criminal Court so quickly and the legal basis on which the objection was upheld.

On Monday evening, reports emerged from several media outlets claiming that an operation had been carried out at Beykoz Municipality and that certain tender files had been seized. Later that night, CHP Beykoz District Chair Mahir Taştan refuted these claims, stating that the prosecution had only requested some documents in writing and had given the municipality until midnight to prepare them.

After midnight, Beykoz Mayor Alaattin Köseler appeared on Halk TV, confirming that all requested documents had been prepared, but no officials had arrived to collect them. However, Köseler’s statement revealed a more striking detail: the prosecution’s request lacked a wet signature, and when the barcode on the document was scanned, no corresponding record appeared. Moreover, Köseler claimed that the Deputy Chief Prosecutor of Beykoz had no knowledge of the matter. In summary, the origin of the document requesting files from the municipality and certain companies remained unclear.

WHAT’S BEHIND THESE MOVES?

For some time, legal circles have been speculating that the ongoing operations spanning politics, media, municipalities, and even the arts in İstanbul are targeting multiple fronts simultaneously. The primary goal appears to be paralyzing and incapacitating the opposition.

Another underlying factor is the reported tension between Hak Yol supporters and the so-called Nationalists (İstanbul Group) within the judiciary. According to discussions in courthouse corridors, the nationalist faction, particularly within the HSK’s 2nd Chamber, is accelerating its efforts to consolidate power. Meanwhile, the Hak Yol faction is said to be adopting a passive resistance strategy in response, and these two cases are seen as manifestations of this conflict.

Regardless of the underlying power dynamics, the real casualty in this struggle is the public’s trust in justice and the future of the country.

Note: This text has been translated from the turkish original entitled İstanbul yargının kapışma sahası mı? published in BirGün newspaper February 19, 2025.