In the case filed after a trustee was appointed to Akdeniz Municipality, run by the Peoples’ Equality and Democracy Party (DEM Party), in Mersin’s Akdeniz district on 13 January 2025, the request for a stay of execution was rejected.
Reviewing the application submitted by the dismissed co-mayors Hoşyar Sarıyıldız and Nuriye Arslan, along with deputy mayor Özgür Çağlar, the Mersin 1st Administrative Court ruled that there was no unlawfulness in the governorate’s action. The court claimed that the appointment of a trustee was in line with the legislation and argued that the municipal council did not have the authority to elect an acting mayor.
After the ruling, DEM Party Mersin MP Ali Bozan said the decision was political rather than legal, stressing that what was at stake was not a judicial ruling but a decision taken by those in power.
The municipality is being run by an appointed official
Ali Bozan said the will of the people of Akdeniz was being targeted and stressed that what appeared to be a court ruling was, in fact, not a judicial decision. Bozan said, “This needs to be underlined clearly. This is a decision taken by those in power. It is a decision taken by the AKP. With this decision, it was not only our co-mayors who were dismissed or the DEM Party that were punished. The real punishment imposed by this ruling was directed at the voters who supported the DEM Party.”
Bozan said the municipal will be had effectively been abolished under the trustee administration. He added: “Since a trustee was appointed to Akdeniz Municipality, the municipality has been run by an appointed official, a district governor. During this period, when we look at the trustee’s practices, we see that no municipal council meetings have been held. The trustee holds a token council meeting once a month with himself and two officials he appoints, and there is no oversight whatsoever in this process. Under the trustee system, there is no mechanism to oversee the trustee, because the one who is supposed to provide oversight is the trustee himself. From this perspective, those being punished are neither our co-mayors nor the DEM Party. Those being punished are the residents of Akdeniz, the voters.”
If the law were followed, the court would await the ruling
Bozan also pointed to what he described as internal legal inconsistencies in the ruling, in addition to its political nature. He said the Istanbul 9th Administrative Court had referred to the case concerning Article 45 of the Municipal Law, which is cited as the legal basis for trustee appointments, to the Constitutional Court on the grounds that the provision is unconstitutional.
Bozan also said: “When we say that this is not a court ruling but a decision taken by the Justice and Development Party (AKP), we also point to serious contradictions within the content of the decision itself. Regarding Article 45 of the Municipal Law, which is cited as the basis for the trustee’s practice, the Istanbul 9th Administrative Court referred the file to the Constitutional Court because this provision is unconstitutional.
If this court had truly acted in accordance with the law, the steps it needed to take were clear. In the case filed by us and our colleagues, it was explicitly argued that the relevant article of the Municipal Law is unconstitutional. With such a precedent before it, the court should either have applied to the Constitutional Court on the same grounds, claiming that the legal regulation on trustees is unconstitutional, or it should have waited for the Constitutional Court’s ruling on the matter. For this reason, what we are facing is not a court ruling; it is clearly a decision taken by the AKP.”
Municipalities are seized through post-coup emergency decrees
Bozan said the legal basis cited for trustee appointments was created under the state of emergency, stressing that the legitimacy of these decisions is highly questionable.
Bozan said: “The relevant article of the Municipal Law that is now being used to justify trustee appointments was introduced after the coup attempt. Courts are today issuing rulings because of a regulation enacted through a decree of law promulgated under state of emergency conditions.
Until now, the rhetoric of the AKP government has consistently included statements such as ‘we are victims of coups’ and ‘we are an anti-coup political party.’ They present themselves as an anti-coup government. Yet, following the coup attempt, municipalities are being seized today based on a law enacted through an emergency decree issued under state of emergency conditions, and courts are being made to rule accordingly.
In this form, there is no decision here that can be considered acceptable. It is not a decision that can be assessed as lawful within the framework of the existing legal order. Because the body issuing this decision is not the judicial panel; the body issuing this decision is the AKP government itself.”
Leave a Reply