Court Postpones the Case to May 6
At Monday's hearing of the case, which was held at Ankara State Security Court (DGM) No. 2, the court chairman gave information on the petition filed by the intervenors of the case and announced that plaintiffs Serhat Ozhan, Eyup Kayar and Arife Kayar had withdrawn their complaints and discharged their lawyer Huseyin Buzoglu on the grounds that they had been deceived by certain people because of this case.
Gülen faces up to 10 years imprisonment in the case, filed with the claims that he had established an illegal organization in order to found a state depending on religious rules.
Two witnesses testified in the court during Monday's hearing, attended by the three lawyers of Gülen. Eken stated during the hearing that Gülen had said in his defense that he supported the Turkish Republic and had not made any attempts to change the constitutional order of the State.
Testifying in court as a witness, the former deputy chief of Ankara Police's intelligence department, Zafer Aktas, said that they had opened an inquiry into the Police organization following a news story which was published in Aydinlik magazine, and claimed that the followers of the Fethullah movement had been deliberately given positions in the Police organization. Aktas noted that they had found indications but had not been given the chance to discover concrete evidence.
Another witness, the former chief of Ankara Police Intelligence Department, Ersan Dalman, stated that they had figured certain issues in Gülen's books and added, "He used dark, unfortunate and long bitter period instead of Republic, while used Islam instead of Shariah and service privates instead of militants." Dalman noted that Gülen's books did not contain Ataturk, Ismet Inonu or their acts, while praising dervish lodges.
Taking the stage after Dalman, Gülen's lawyer Abdulkadir Aksoy noted that the witness had made imaginary and unreal similes, supporting that his client mentioned a 200-300 year long unfortunate period. Aksoy added that it was clear that this period was not the Republican era.
Rejecting the prosecutor's demand for the issuance of an arrest warrant, the court postponed the case until May 6, 2002, in order to obtain further information and hear new witnesses. 2002-12-03 00:00:00
- Created on .