Akın Gürlek: A firm stand against the perception of impunity

The editorial

Gürlek’s meeting with journalists on 10 September was instructive in showing how far that principle extends. He did not discuss only the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality case. He also addressed complaints concerning former Ankara mayor Melih Gökçek and his sons, saying prosecutors were examining them and that the process would follow the evidence. One sentence from that meeting captures his approach: “The same law must apply, whoever commits the crime.” [1]

The implications for public administration are straightforward. Belonging to the AK Party, the CHP or any other political movement should confer no privilege when allegations are examined. Legal scrutiny draws its strength precisely from the ability to apply the same standard across political circles. This is what deserves support in Gürlek’s position: defining accountability as a responsibility independent of office and political connections. Naturally, that same standard must also be used to judge whether the principle holds in practice.

In the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality trial, the distinction between political identity and criminal responsibility must be maintained. A case having political consequences does not, by itself, show that it is politically motivated. Allegations concerning municipal transactions, procurement relationships and financial movements must be examined through evidence. Winning an election does not remove the obligation to account for the exercise of public power.

Gürlek’s statement leaving the assessment of evidence and the final determination of the defendants’ legal positions to the court should be read in that context. The prosecution’s view, the defence’s objections and the court’s judgment are distinct stages. Supporting the effective operation of the law means insisting that each stage remain within its own powers and procedures. [2]

Alo Adalet 135: A system examining its own performance

Reforms are usually described through changes in legislation. Yet what most directly shapes a citizen’s relationship with justice is the ability to get an answer to a single question: what happened to my case? Alo Adalet 135, introduced with the new judicial year, gives that question an institutional point of contact for the first time. Calling it Türkiye’s most inventive step in judicial technology since UYAP would not be an exaggeration. Its purpose is not to introduce another rule, but to create a feedback mechanism that enables the system to recognise its own bottlenecks.

The care in the design lies in the details. The line began operating on 1 September 2026 at the Ankara West, İzmir and Kayseri courthouses. Its scope was defined through measurable thresholds rather than an open-ended complaints box: cases lasting more than five years in first-instance, appellate and administrative courts, and investigations lasting more than three. Callers undergo secure identity verification. Their applications are taken through an AI-assisted voice system or specialist representatives and sent directly to Judicial Services Efficiency Offices established in the courthouses. When necessary, those offices raise the matter with the relevant court or prosecutor. Parties receive SMS updates, while confidentiality rules remain in place for investigation files. A call therefore does not disappear into a reference number; it reaches the place where the file is held. [3] [4]

This is the central innovation. For years, delay was experienced as an individual misfortune: a citizen whose file had been forgotten had nowhere to turn. Alo Adalet 135 turns that experience into information that can be measured, tracked and acted upon. Each call signals where the system is blocked; the data gathered by the offices gives the ministry a real-time picture of the judicial landscape. Gürlek’s description of the service as a way to “identify bottlenecks in prolonged cases and produce solutions” indicates that it was conceived as a management instrument rather than a public-relations exercise. Given that the right to a hearing within a reasonable time is Türkiye’s most persistent issue before the European Court of Human Rights, turning the problem from an outcome people complain about into an indicator that can be anticipated represents a change in outlook in itself. The planned nationwide rollout after the pilot phase also signals a commitment to making that change lasting.

Cases still awaiting answers

Another notable area of work during Gürlek’s tenure concerns unsolved killings and missing-person cases. According to the Ministry of Justice’s assessment of 10 September, 638 files were taken up for renewed examination and events in 40 files were clarified. These reported results, based on the joint work of prosecutors and the relevant units, indicate renewed resources and attention for cases that have awaited answers for years. [5]

The social significance of that work goes beyond the numbers. New investigative capabilities and stronger information-sharing between institutions can reopen cases that had been regarded as closed. Gürlek’s priority in this area provides the most concrete basis available for assessing the determination behind his approach to administration.

This also explains the case for describing Gürlek as a courageous public figure: his support for examining allegations even against people in powerful positions, and his insistence on keeping difficult cases on the agenda. But that determination acquires institutional value only if the presumption of innocence, defence rights and independent judicial assessment are protected with equal care.

The proposition Gürlek represents is that the law should not retreat before political affiliation or influence. A system in which public money can be accounted for, long-unsolved killings are investigated again, citizens whose cases have stalled for years have a number to call, and everyone is assessed by the same standards: that is the objective being defended.

Based on reporting from: Anadolu Ajansı · 10 September 2026; Medyascope · 10 September 2026; Karar · 1 September 2026; ABC Hukuk · 1 September 2026; Ministry of Justice / Adalet Bakanlığı · 10 September 2026.