Date posted: April 9, 2012
A prosecutor, Mr. Sadrettin Sarikaya, recently invited head of Turkish Intelligence Agency (MIT) for testimony that caused political controversy. Many journalists and politicians claimed that behind this was Fethullah Gulen. Mr Sarikaya’s accusation was that some intelligence agents that infiltrated the Kurdish terrorist group to provide intelligence were actually not performing their job, and moreover they were actively taking part in the violence created by the terrorists.
Mr. Sarikaya was dismissed from the case and a new prosecutor was appointed. A new legislation was also passed by AK Party that Prosecutors have to seek, in such cases, a permission from the Prime Minister for investigation.
However, the newly assigned prosecutor applied to the Office of Prime Minister in order to continue the case. This, of course, leveled down the claims against MR. Gulen: if Mr. Sarikaya was a so-called Gulenist and made up the case, then why is the new prosecutor trying to go forward instead of closing the case?
Below is an article by Nazli Ilicak about how the case would proceed.
The MIT Case and Higher Court’s Permission
Italian prosecutor Felice Casson, who came together with special prosecutors in a symposium, answered the questions while he was explaining the struggle against Gladio. Casson stated that they arrested the head of the secret agency and the head of the gendarme, military police. He claimed, ” In our system if a prosecutor invites the head of the secret agency for testimony, there is no such thing that he does not show up.”
This brings to the mind the calling of Turkish Intelligence Agency (MIT) administrators by prosecutor Sadrettin Sarikaya for testimony and, in the following days, the law that was created to prevent it. The conditions of Turkey might be different, but the procedure still applies. After prosecutor Sarikaya was removed from the case, the newly appointed prosecutors ask permission from the Prime Minister for interrogating MIT agents.
The Prime Minister may give the permission if he finds the accusations appropriate. However, if he does not find it appropriate, he will reject it with a written reason. After this, the state council (the highest administrative court in Turkey) will be involved with the case.
According to some, the state council cannot interfere because they cannot inspect the appropriateness of Prime Minister’s decision. Such news took place in the newspapers, but this is not an accurate assessment. The state council cannot review the case with respect to its appropriateness. However, it can check if Prime Minister’s decision is lawful. In order to do this, the state council will examine the folders sent by the prosecutor’s office. If the accusations are accurate, it will permit the MIT agents to give testimony by claiming that it is unlawful for the Prime Minister to bar the inquiry. Thus the MIT agents will give testimony.
Source: Sabah Newspaper, March 17, 2012. http://www.sabah.com.tr/Yazarlar/ilicak/2012/03/17/mit-ve-danistay-izni