Strong reaction from the CHP to the Cumhuriyet indictment: ‘More evidence will emerge from the prosecutors’ phones’

The indictment against our detained columnists, cartoonist and managers in the investigation targeting our newspaper was leaked to the pro-regime press before our paper’s lawyers had yet seen it. Reaction has come from the CHP to the allegations in the published indictment by the prosecutor who is on trial charged with Fethullah Gülen Terrorist Organisation (FETO) membership that the journalists were in contact with ByLock users.

THE ENDEAVOUR TO CONCOCT EVIDENCE AND CREATE A CRIME

CHP Deputy General Chair Bülent Tezcan, stating that FETO methods are still in use, pointed out that, in the course of the conspiracy trials, there were two strategies that FETO employed in alliance with the ruling party at the time. Tezcan, stating that the first was to draft indictments based on aspersions and false evidence and the second was to serve the indictments up to the pro-regime media before sending it to the defendants’ counsel, said, ‘The serving up of the Cumhuriyet indictment to the poodle media before the defendants’ counsel had even seen it is a sign that FETO practices are continuing as before.’ Tezcan, stressing that the indictment also complies fully with FETO practice in terms of content, made the assessment, ‘It is founded on aspersions. They cannot tell Kadri Gürsel he uses ByLock so they have tried to concoct evidence and create a crime by speaking of communications. This shows the extent to which the ruling party that ordered the investigation and the prosecutors who are conducting the investigation under instructions are floundering. If a journalist in one way or another contacting a by-lock user by telephone is evidence of organisation membership, then the prosecutors who drafted these indictments, the ministers, MPs and party organisations of this ruling party ... None of them can dodge an indictment being drafted against them. I am sure if they look at the contacts lists over the past ten years of those who ordered the prosecutors to investigate and of the prosecutors who drafted the indictment they will find many more pieces of ‘crime evidence’ than the evidence in this indictment.’

Is the ruling party to determine editorial policy?

CHP Constitution Commission Member Muharrem Erkek, for his part, stated that the indictment was based entirely on fiction and was devoid of legal content. Erkek, saying that the one who aided terrorist organisations was the ruling party itself, said, ‘Everybody knows that the AKP installed people who were members of the Gülen Brotherhood into the Turkish Armed Forces, the judiciary and all institutions of the state. In that case, the government must be prosecuted for aiding and abetting FETO.’ Erkek, stressing that the issue around the management of the Cumhuriyet Foundation fell under the jurisdiction of the civil courts, commented, ‘The ruling party is now doing on its own what in the past it did along with the Gülen Brotherhood’s prosecutors, judges and police officers. The wish is to stifle opposition in the country.’ Erkek, stating that our paper’s managers are in jail for engaging in opposition, said, ‘They are all enlightened, honourable people of this country. We are faced with such a tragicomic situation that editorial policy is criticised in the indictment. Is the ruling party to determine a newspaper’s editorial policy? This is indicative of the degree the ruling party has drifted away from freedoms and the rule of law.’