Mehmet Görmez: "I Thought This Was a Terrorist Attack"

The July 15 trials continue to be conducted unlawfully. Since 2016, Turkey has been governed under an undeclared state of emergency. The July 15 trials are nowhere near revealing the truth, while thousands of people have been delayed for years and subjected to indescribable suffering. Beyond that, we see that the courts handling these trials have also been assigned the task of hiding and protecting the real perpetrators. Even within this fundamentally flawed process, whenever new information is uncovered, we repeatedly encounter scenes that contradict themselves and align with the statements of those currently on trial, supporting their claims.

Former President of Religious Affairs Mehmet Görmez

One of the individuals who has been kept from testifying in the July 15 trials is Former President of Religious Affairs Mehmet Görmez. On April 29, 2024, Former President of Religious Affairs Mehmet Görmez testified in the trial held by the Ankara 14th High Criminal Court. In the statement, which could only be summarized on the "12punto" news site as a result of eight years of intellectual preparation, there are still contradictions and issues that lack solid grounding.

Legally and Religiously Sworn

Before Mehmet Görmez's testimony as a witness is taken, he is sworn in by the presiding judge. In response to a defendant's question, "Is the oath you took as a witness religiously valid?" Mehmet Görmez answers, "Of course." Below, you will find what Mehmet Görmez expressed throughout the trial following his oath.

Where Has He Been Until Today?

It has been stated that Mehmet Görmez was previously dismissed from being heard by the court because he could not be located. How credible is it to claim that a retired senior public official could not be located? Görmez stated that he did not attend because he was not invited to the Parliamentary Investigation Commission, and he also mentioned that no court had summoned him until now. Therefore, despite the critical role played by the Presidency of Religious Affairs on the night of July 15, the person in charge has either never been summoned or is not telling the truth.

Where Is He Today?

Mehmet Görmez connected to the trial via a video call from the Ankara Courthouse without coming to the courtroom in Sincan. Mehmet Görmez's failure to appear in the courtroom in Sincan, despite being in Ankara, has been interpreted by the defense attorneys as an attempt to avoid confrontation. When asked if there was a specific reason for not coming to the courtroom, he stated that he thought the trial was being held at the Ankara Courthouse and had gone there. In response to the question of whether his address was written on the summons he received for the trial, he answered, "No." Attorney Ayşe Süeda Ünal stated that the summons indicated in bold letters that the trial would be held in Sincan. Therefore, either the location of the trial was not written in the summons (how likely is it that this was omitted?), or the person saying "it was not written" is not telling the truth.

If He Is Not Telling the Truth

If even years after July 15, false statements can be included during a very limited testimony, it means that the credibility of everything Mehmet Görmez has said has been seriously undermined. Such a thing is not expected from a person who has held the highest position in the state’s religious affairs. Deliberately doing injustice to so many people is never befitting a religious scholar, and he has no right to do so.

If He Is Telling the Truth

Mehmet Görmez's following words regarding that night are also noteworthy: “... the messages I received stating that the Bosphorus Bridge was blocked by tanks led me to think that this was a terrorist attack”. If Mehmet Görmez is telling the truth in this statement, then the following question naturally arises: How can a senior official, someone who is capable of coordinating with the state’s security agencies, including MIT, and holds the title of professor, consider this extraordinary situation to be a terrorist attack? When conscripts on active duty, military academy students, and officers and non-commissioned officers who have been conducting exercises for months under the pretext of a terrorist attack are taken out of their barracks, why are they not believed?

Mahir Çetin