Lawyer criticised over Facebook post

A LAWYER on the Supreme Judiciary Board has been publicly rapped by the body for a social media post published on general election day.

It issued a statement saying Özen Hürses’s “unpleasant” words were merely her personal views, but could damage the board’s standing of political impartiality.

In a January 7 Facebook message on her personal account, which sparked a huge reaction, Mrs Hürses struck an apparently sarcastic tone, commenting that “for the last month there has been no proper action, no public servants in the public offices . . . No decisions taken . . . We were not doing any work”.

She continued: “Police, public servants, judges who were on duty for elections, all became miserable. There was a government crisis. Seems like UBP [the National Unity Party] and all its deputies had HIV . . . !!! Everyone was clean, only UBP was dirty.

“Everyone who voted for UBP was a selfseeker . . . !!!”

In an apparent reaction to anti-UBP preelection publicity, including reports raising questions over the private lives of figures including prime minister Hüseyin Özgürgün, Mrs Hürses added: “There are private lives and photographs of so many deputies, but UBP did not give anyone hard time and hit below the belt. It did not bring up old files sitting in the Attorney-General’s Office.”

She concluded: “I would like to see a new election, but this time photographs, videos and all pending files needs to come out. And HP [People’s Party] can also announce who is paying everything for them?”

Mrs Hürses is a parliamentary appointee to the Supreme Judiciary Board, whose members are also named by the president, attorney-general and Bar Association and tasked with appointing judges and ensuring the judiciary’s proper functioning. The body is headed by the Chief Justice, who also heads the Supreme Election Board (YSK).

In its written statement last Friday, the Supreme Judiciary Board said: “The unpleasant [social media] sharing by board member Özen Hürses reflects her own personal views which might jeopardise the prestige of the board.

“The board — an independent organ — has been functioning in accordance with the law. Up to now, those appointed or elected to [it], as lawyers, have carried out their duties in an independent and fair way and sought the interests of the judiciary even though they had political affiliations.”