ANTI-CORRUPTION
UPDATE OF
June 2005 – June 2006
This report
summarizes, respectively, the developments in the anti-corruption measures in
the legal area and corruption related incidents deeply affect the general
public in
I- Legal developments
There are no new international agreements related to fight
against corruption signed or ratified by Turkey in this period.
No legislation related to anti-corruption measures passed
during this period.
Following serious allegations regarding the members of the government and severe debates between political parties in that regard, Justice and Development Party (AKP-the ruling party in the Parliement) has announced the Political Ethics Reform Package.
(a) Draft Law on Establishment of Political Ethics Commission (“Draft Ethics Law”)
According to Draft Ethics Law, Political Ethics Commission (“Commission”) will be established to control non-ethical conducts and transactions of the members of the Parliament and members of the Ministers Council who are not parliamentarian (“Parlimentarian”). Among other measures, Draft Ethics Law established that Parliamentarians may not participate public bids or privatizations; involve with contractors, real estate developers, or other corporations serving government offices and municipalities or corporations, associations, institutions subsidized or used incentives from the government; they cannot be appointed to such companies, as managers, members of board of directors or board of auditors; they cannot accept any duty in banks, financial institutions, insurance companies, subsidiaries of governmental institutions with or without consideration; they cannot follow any business, etc. Parliamentarians are obliged to submit their assets, credits, debts, and their business to the Parliament within one month of the following the election. Gifts or donations to be given to the Parliamentarians may not be distributed without the permisson of the Commission.
Even though it is a step forward, the Draft Ethics Law has significant deficiencies as criticized by the public. First of all, there are a number of valid concerns regarding the operation and efficiency of the Political Ethics Commission. The number of the members of the Political Ethics Commission will be established in accordance with the ratio of the number of parliamentarian of the political parties within the Parliamentary, therefore, the party in power shall always have the ability to control the opposing parties and yet prevent ad control of the investigations of its Parliamentarians. Additionally, the works of the Political Ethics Commission will be confidential; therefore, this situation will cast doubts on the transparency and accountability of the Committee. Moreover, as the broad immunities of the Parliamentarians appear to remain, thus, if the Parliament votes in favor of the Parliamentarian charged with violation of the Draft Ethics Law, he/she will not be indicted with any of the charges.
Furthermore even though the Parliamentarians are prohibited for dealings with public biddings and privatization, their spouses and children are not, hence, still leaving a door for illegal wrongdoings in such transaction. Finally, Draft Ethics Law brings new understanding regarding disclosure of assets of government employees, which will be discussed below in Section I (3) (c) of the Report.
(b) Draft Modification of a Part of the Law
on Main Terms of Elections and Electoral Records (“Draft Elections Law”)
The Draft Elections Law envisages to provide a transperant
election procedure and audit the financing of the political parties. In order
to reach these goals, all political parties and candidates will be
obliged to open an “election account,” which all electoral expenses are
recorded therein. Legal entities will be able to make donations within the
limits specified by the High Electoral Board.
Draft Elections Law has been criticezed on several grounds, such as, donations of natural persons are excluded from the scope of the draft and auditing of the bank accounts of the political parties should be clearly regulated.
(c) Disclosure of Assets
Disclosure of assets of politicians and bureachreuts have been one of the discussion topics of the public during this period.
Within the scope of the Draft Ethics Law, certain provisions of Law on Disclosure of Assets and Fight Against Bribery and Corruption, Law No. 3628 (“Discloure of Assets Law”) are declared to be amended. Pursuant to draft amendments, scope of the persons obliged to dislose their assets have been expanded to include court appointed experts; members of board of directors and board of auditors in the head office of the political parties; natural and legal persons acting as shareholders, members of board of directors and board of auditors, managers of media; and president, members of board of directors and board of auditors of professional associations and labor unions. Draft clearly indicates adherence to the principle of open and transperant disclosure of assets, which diverts from current rules in that regard. On the other hand, the draft conflicts with rules exisiting in Discloure of Assets Law currently prohibiting disclosure of assets and punishing the violations thereof. One of the points indicated as weakness in the draft is the exclusion of members of the directors of the political parites in municipalities and counties.
(d) Draft Law on Fighting Corruption (“Draft
Corruption Law”)
Draft Corruption Law, submited for a discussion of public on
2004, aims to combat against unethical practices in the politics and
bureauchracy and reduce the decadent transactions therein by determining the
terms and procedures on investigations and prosecutions of such crimes. Drafting work is said to be still continue.
Draft Corruption Law has been viewed as a more of a measure
mainly focused on the procedurals rules, such as, accleration of the
procedures, prolonging of the the statue of limitations, etc. However, it is a
clear fact that Turkey may be deemed to have sufficient legal tools to fight
against the corruption, yet it is in the need of central and independent authority to
combat claims, therefore, it should asserted that instead of enacting another
legislation, drafting work should be focused on such authority. Several
commissions established under different institutions from time to time is not a
sufficient measure on
the fight against the corruption as there are no coordination
efforts and uniformity in the main terms and procedural rules in such
commissions
A number of issues believed to have remarkable effect on corruption are as follows:
(a) Need to Limit
Parliamentarian Immunity
Parliamentarian immunity is considered to one of the vital anti-corruption measures in the public eye, which is constantly ignored by the government thus far.
(b) Public Procurement Law
Public Procurement Law, Law No: 4734, has already undergone
seven amendments from its enactment in 2003. Drafting work on new amendments in
Public Procurement Law is said to be commenced by the Ministry of
Transportation due to alleged inefficiency of the Law. It has been asserted
that the draft Public Procurement Law will be more flexible and cover only
certain transactions over a specific amount limit. It is also mentioned that
the draft will exclude transactions of state economic enterprises (KIT). New
amendments aiming to lessen the announcement and tender periods may create
concern on disruption the transparency of the tenders.
II. Non-Legal Developments
Public perception of the corruption has significantly risen and corruption remains to one of the crucial problems in the society this year. Herewith are some of the highlights of the incidents extensively debated in the public during the course of the year
(1) Censure Motion Against Minister of Finance
The Opposition Republican People's Party (CHP) filed a censure motion against Minister of Finance accusing him of abuse of power in a tender and illegally disclosing the assets of others, corrupting the privatization tender for Galataport, violating the rules that governed trade and banking secrets, committing slander and abusing the authority provided by his public office. Such motion was rejected by the votes of AKP parliamentars.
Public tenders and privatizations remained to be in the center of the corruption allegations this year. Followings are some of the examples widely discussed during this period :
·
During Galataport privatization, Minister of Finance, Kemal Unakıtan,
was accused of making private negotiations with Ofer family, discussions
resulted doubts on transparency of the privatization process and tender was
finally cancelled in accordance with the decison of
Supreme Administrative Court ruling that permission to bypass current zoning
laws in privatization area had not been granted.
·
Unakıtan family was once again alleged to be involved another public
tender for sale of Telsim, one of the GSM companies in Turkey, via daughter of
Minister of Finance.
· Another contraversial project was Dubai Towers to be constructed in Levent, Istanbul by the companies of Sheik of United Arap Emirates in collaboration with the Istanbul Municipality (who is a part of local AKP administration of Istanbul), which was criticized for not being selected through transparent tender procedure.
·
Public tenders by municipalities and other local governmental offices
appear to be main channels of rapidly increasing claims involving wrongdoings
in tenders throughout Turkey.
The golden seahorse brooch, one of the most precious pieces of the 450-piece Karun Treasure, once stolen from Turkey and restored after an expensive litigation and settlement in the United States couple of years ago, had been replaced by a fake and stolen piece in the Usak Archeological Museum. After commencemnt of investigations, Director of Usak Museum along with nine individuals were sent to prison. Following Usak incident, 545 ancient coins dating to the time of Persian Emperor Mazaios (361 to 333 B.C) in Kahramanmaraş Museum revealed to be fakes.
The Disciplinary Board of AKP dismissed Hatay parliamenter Fuat Geçen from the party, while the AKP Executive Board sent Afyon parliamenter Mahmut Koçak to the same board for dismissal recently, both commented suspected irregularities in some state tenders and accused the party forgetting its pledge to fight against corruption.
Commander in Chief of Navy, İlhami Erdil, was tried before the
Military Court for interfering procurement tender, abusing his duty, and
gaining unfair profit thereof. Commander was sentenced two and a half year
prison, dismissed from the military and lost all employment rights related
thereto. Having evaluated his salary from the mililtary and compared such with
his statement of assets under on Disclosure of Assets Law, Court had deceded
that two condominiums were appeared to be bought as a result of wrondealings
and they are to be seized. Daughter of Commander was also sentenced to six
months of prison due to pressuring the Commander for interfering with the
tender. As a result of the trial, for the first time in the history of the
military, a person in the duty of Commender in Chief was sentenced such a
crime.
The Chief of Prosecutor's Office filed corruption charges regarding pharmateucals companies, including well-known companies Roche, Pfizer and Bayer, for sale of pharmateucals to Social Security Administration and Ministry of Health with exorbitant pricing as in violations of law.