×
High court wakes up!
Paylaş
LinkedinFlipboardLinki KopyalaYazı Tipi
Beyond doubt, the Constitutional Court is the master of its own agenda and it should be none of the business of some fastidious writers to attempt to set the agenda of the high court. When the high court handles an issue; how it handles an issue; and what decision it takes on an issue must all be defined in the procedures of trial at the highest court of the country the prime task of which is to look into compatibility of the parliamentary legislation to the text and spirit of the Constitution.
One general principle of justice is "Late justice is itself injustice." The high court, obviously, is as well making judicial rulings even though its verdicts often has an impacts on the evolution of politics or conduct of politics in the country.
The high court may handle, discuss, examine and finalize a closure case against one party in five months, while it may not conclude a similar case filed against another party at a much earlier date though well over a year has passed since the chief prosecutor of the Court of Appeals made the closure application. As the chief judge of the top court admitted in reading out the 10-1 verdict that condemned the ruling party as the focus of anti-secular activities but stopped short of closing it down "for conjectural reasons," the pertaining conjectural reasons, obviously, don’t allow closure of the other party before the March 29 vote.
Hold on! This writer is not saying that the court should close down the other party, the pro-Kurdish one which unfortunately has been in bed with the separatist Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, gang rather than becoming a really civilian political party engaged in politics. On the contrary, perhaps it is in the best interest of the nation to keep it open and give politics yet another opportunity for an invigorated effort for a peaceful resolution to the Kurdish problem. However, the pro-Kurdish party, or the Democratic Society Party, has been providing the high court with such hard evidence about its support for the separatist gang that if and when the court makes a decision on the closure case against that party it will be really very difficult to save that party.
Late justice is injustice, but better late than never
On June 3, 2005 despite earlier presidential veto the AKP majority in Parliament legislated for a second time a law allowing "technical surveillance" of the entire nation by a "telecommunications communication department" within the Telecommunications High Board. Under the law the head of that board would be appointed by the prime minister among candidate/s nominated by the Telecommunications High Board chairman. Furthermore, supervision of the "technical surveillance" activities would be done by an individual or commission appointed by the prime minister.
As Sezer had vetoed the first version of the legislation and the AKP majority re-enacted it without making any change into its text, the presidency had no other option but sign it into law and apply to the Constitutional Court and demand its annulment. So did Sezer. However, for the past more than 3.5 years the high court did not consider the issue as one it must give priority and the entire nation was placed under "technical surveillance." The situation turned into such a tragicomedy that even the judge presiding the special Silivri Prison Tribunal looking the Ergenekon case joked to defendants complaining their telephones were listened to saying "Who knows I am not listened to as well?"
Yesterday, the high court woke up, started discussing the demand of Sezer for the annulment of the law. The court ruled that it was unconstitutional to give the prime minister the right to appoint a "telecommunications communication director" as well as a person or commission to supervise that department and director. That is, the court said such arbitrary powers were unconstitutional. Furthermore, the court decided to handle an appeal by a Manisa court challenging constitutionality of technical surveillance of the nation.
If the high court does not go to sleep again and makes a ruling soon on the appeal of the Manisa court and if it declares as "unconstitutional" the wholesale technical surveillance of the nation, then we will be able to say "Yes, there are still judges in this country."
The high court may handle, discuss, examine and finalize a closure case against one party in five months, while it may not conclude a similar case filed against another party at a much earlier date though well over a year has passed since the chief prosecutor of the Court of Appeals made the closure application. As the chief judge of the top court admitted in reading out the 10-1 verdict that condemned the ruling party as the focus of anti-secular activities but stopped short of closing it down "for conjectural reasons," the pertaining conjectural reasons, obviously, don’t allow closure of the other party before the March 29 vote.
Hold on! This writer is not saying that the court should close down the other party, the pro-Kurdish one which unfortunately has been in bed with the separatist Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, gang rather than becoming a really civilian political party engaged in politics. On the contrary, perhaps it is in the best interest of the nation to keep it open and give politics yet another opportunity for an invigorated effort for a peaceful resolution to the Kurdish problem. However, the pro-Kurdish party, or the Democratic Society Party, has been providing the high court with such hard evidence about its support for the separatist gang that if and when the court makes a decision on the closure case against that party it will be really very difficult to save that party.
Late justice is injustice, but better late than never
On June 3, 2005 despite earlier presidential veto the AKP majority in Parliament legislated for a second time a law allowing "technical surveillance" of the entire nation by a "telecommunications communication department" within the Telecommunications High Board. Under the law the head of that board would be appointed by the prime minister among candidate/s nominated by the Telecommunications High Board chairman. Furthermore, supervision of the "technical surveillance" activities would be done by an individual or commission appointed by the prime minister.
As Sezer had vetoed the first version of the legislation and the AKP majority re-enacted it without making any change into its text, the presidency had no other option but sign it into law and apply to the Constitutional Court and demand its annulment. So did Sezer. However, for the past more than 3.5 years the high court did not consider the issue as one it must give priority and the entire nation was placed under "technical surveillance." The situation turned into such a tragicomedy that even the judge presiding the special Silivri Prison Tribunal looking the Ergenekon case joked to defendants complaining their telephones were listened to saying "Who knows I am not listened to as well?"
Yesterday, the high court woke up, started discussing the demand of Sezer for the annulment of the law. The court ruled that it was unconstitutional to give the prime minister the right to appoint a "telecommunications communication director" as well as a person or commission to supervise that department and director. That is, the court said such arbitrary powers were unconstitutional. Furthermore, the court decided to handle an appeal by a Manisa court challenging constitutionality of technical surveillance of the nation.
If the high court does not go to sleep again and makes a ruling soon on the appeal of the Manisa court and if it declares as "unconstitutional" the wholesale technical surveillance of the nation, then we will be able to say "Yes, there are still judges in this country."
Paylaş
LinkedinFlipboardLinki KopyalaYazı Tipi
