Turkish President’s response to Constitutional Court’s ruling”: “I neither obey not respect it”
Turkey is known to be a democratic country with “ADVANCED DEMOCRACY” – as clearly expressed by the president himself on “many” occasions. The president has responsed to a ruling by the Constitutional Court as follows; “I Neither Obey Nor Respect Constitutional Court’s Ruling”
Holding a news conference at Atatürk Airport ahead of a travel to West Africa covering Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, Nigeria and Guinea, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said regarding the release of Can Dündar and Erdem Gül pursuant to the ruling of Constitutional Court that: “I just keep silent in the face of Constitutional Court’s ruling; however, I am not in a position to approve the ruling. I neither obey nor respect the ruling because we have an obvious truth. This is not a ruling for acquittal, but a ruling for release.”
“THIS CASE IS NOT ABOUT FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, BUT ABOUT SPYING”
In reply to a question regarding constitutional court’s ruling on the release of Can Dündar and Erdem Gül, President Erdoğan said: “I haven’t spoken about this matter so far. Let me be clear that this event has nothing to do with freedom of expression. This is a case of spying. Presidential Spokesperson also made a statement regarding the case on Friday. We should see the obvious truth. The press cannot have a limitless freedom. Nowhere in the world is the press granted limitless freedom. This news contained all types of attacks against the President, the then-Prime Minister, of this country. It is out of the question for us to just stand by and watch a pressman slander or insult the Prime Minister and the President of this country as he wishes.”
“NOT A RULING FOR ACQUITAL BUT A RULING FOR RELEASE”
Stating that he would keep silent in the face of the ruling, President Erdoğan said: “Let me be clear that I don’t accept this ruling. I neither obey nor respect it. Because the truth is obvious. This is not a ruling for acquittal, but a ruling for release. In fact the court that made the judgement about them could have insisted on its judgement. If they had done so, the ruling by the constitutional court or the personal application to it would come to naught and so they would have to apply to the European Court of Human Rights; the judgement from which they might get is apparent.
SOURCE: WEB
