Turkish officials respond to alleged nullification of presidential powers

Turkish officials have responded swiftly to address recent claims about the alleged nullification of certain presidential powers by the Constitutional Court. This includes assertions that the court annulled the president’s authority over appointments, such as those of university rectors and the central bank governor.

Justice minister and deputy chairman offer clarifications

Justice Minister Yilmaz Tunc and Presidential Judicial Policies Council deputy chief Mehmet Ucum have both offered clarifications. Tunc firmly stated that such interpretations are unfounded, emphasizing the constitutional provisions outlining the president’s prerogatives in appointing high-level public officials. He underscored the legal basis provided by the Presidential Decrees and the constitutional amendments, ensuring alignment with the new governmental system.

Detailed legal framework

21/1/2017 tarihli ve 6771 sayılı Kanunla Anayasada yapılan değişikliklere uyumun sağlanması amacıyla 10/5/2018 tarihli ve 7142 sayılı Yetki Kanunuyla Bakanlar Kuruluna KHK çıkarma yetkisi verilmiştir.

7142 sayılı Yetki Kanununun çerçevesi, tamamen Anayasa değişikliğine uyum…

— Yılmaz TUNÇ (@yilmaztunc) June 4, 2024

Moreover, Tunc highlighted the intricacies of the legal framework, pointing out the 12 months granted by the Constitutional Court for the implementation of any nullifications. This timeframe suggests a nuanced approach toward any potential changes, allowing for legislative adjustments by the Parliament where necessary.

Essence of presidential authority

4 Haziran 2024 günlü Resmi Gazetede yayınlanan Anayasa Mahkemesi kararına ilişkin kısa bilgilendirme:

Yetki Kanunu kapsamında çıkarılan 703 sy KHK ile çeşitli kanunlardaki 2375 hükümle ilgili düzenleme yapılmıştır.

Anayasa Mahkemesine bu 2375 hükümden sadece 108 konuda iptal…

— Mehmet Uçum (@mehmetucum) June 4, 2024

Ucum echoed Tunc’s sentiments, asserting that the nullifications, particularly regarding the appointment of rectors and the central bank governor, do not represent a substantive nullification of presidential powers. He emphasized that the essence of the president’s authority remains intact, as delineated in Article 130 of the Constitution.

According to Ucum, the Constitutional Court’s rulings primarily address procedural concerns rather than challenging the core presidential prerogatives.

As the discourse unfolds, it remains evident that while the Constitutional Court’s decisions prompt debate, Turkish officials are committed to upholding the constitutional framework and ensuring the integrity of the country’s governance structure.