ISANBUL: A senior adviser to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has been indicted on charges of judicial interference in an attempt to secure the release from custody of a convicted Iranian drug lord.
Prosecutors are seeking a five-year prison sentence for Burhan Kuzu, a founding member of Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), and a leading member of the board that advises the president on legal matters.
Kuzu is accused of trying to use undue influence on behalf of Naji Sharifi Zindashti, who was convicted in 2007 of possessing 75kg of heroin. Zindashti was released in August 2010, but detained again in April 2018 on suspicion of murder, instigating murder and membership of the outlawed Gulenist organization.
FASTFACTS
Burhan Kuzu is accused of trying to use undue influence on behalf of Naji Sharifi Zindashti, who was convicted in 2007 of possessing 75kg of heroin.
Zindashti was released in August 2010, but detained again in April 2018.
Kuzu is said to have called prosecutors and judges and told them that Zindashti’s release would be beneficial for Turkish-Iranian relations, and he was freed six months later. The prosecutor’s office opposed his release and issued an arrest warrant, but Zindashti had fled.
Kuzu initially denied ever meeting the Iranian, but was forced to admit that he had after the publication of a photograph of them together with Zindashti in a restaurant. He said Zindashti had presented himself as a businessman seeking Turkish citizenship.
Kuzu admitted calling a judge to discuss the case, but said that as a constitutional law professor he had always defended the freedom of the judiciary.
“I called the judge in question and conveyed to him that no evidence was found against Zindashti,” he said.
Oya Ozarslan, a lawyer and board member of Transparency International, told Arab News that Kuzu had no legal authority to contact the judge.
“Expert witnesses who technically are not defined as a party to the case are not authorized to call the judges directly,” she said. “Kuzu’s calling the judge … does not have any legal ground.”
