SPEAKER_00 0:00

In this article, which I wish to begin by clearly stating my view that the latest amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure has provided a protective shield for elected and appointed officials, I would also like to set out my criticisms and recommendations regarding the process. It is a fact that, as the media, we have not, to date, shown due regard for the presumption of innocence. Despite warnings frequently issued by the Media Ethics Council and the principles set out in journalists' codes of conduct, the number of those who have failed to pay attention has been significant. The presumption of innocence, defined as a person cannot be deemed guilty until a court has definitively established their guilt, must be applied differently in cases involving public figures or matters of significant public interest. For this reason, the relevant provision in the law should have been amended accordingly. The legal amendment goes even further than merely preventing the accused from being declared guilty. It introduces a provision to conceal the names of politicians and those who misuse public resources during the trial process. The Bar Association, which has been made the scapegoat in this process, unfortunately failed to show sensitivity on this point when presenting its proposal. Members of parliament, in turn, seized upon this to approve the law in a manner that would protect themselves. The question that remains unanswered is this Did MPs act in this way out of fear of being prosecuted in the future? Or did they raise their hands to override press freedom and the right to information simply because they were unaware of this aspect of the presumption of innocence? The European Convention on Human Rights and Rulings, by the European Court of Human Rights, established that the trial proceedings of politicians must be reported without them being declared guilty. The controversial provision of the law reads as follows. Any person who, in relation to a crime for which a suspect or an individual not yet convicted is being tried, publicly writes, displays, prints, shares, or in any way exposes the suspect's or individual's full name or photograph commits a minor offense. And upon conviction, may be sentenced to up to three, three months imprisonment, or a fine of up to twice the current minimum wage, or both. If the act referred to in the first paragraph above is committed through the press, publications, online media or social media, a minor offense is committed, and the person committing this offense may, upon conviction, be sentenced to imprisonment for up to one, one year, or a fine of up to four times the current minimum wage, or both. According to the relevant provision in the law, a news report stating the Prime Minister's undersecretary was brought before the court today on bribery charges cannot be published. Nor can we say a former minister, district chairman, police chief, journalist, spoke in court and defended himself against allegations of a fake diploma, nor can we report on a person who was referred to court on allegations of child abuse, spent five years in custody, and has now had their trial commence, defending themselves and denying the allegations, whilst identifying the individuals involved. As can be seen, the issue goes beyond simply publishing names and photographs. We now have a brilliant law that ensures these processes are concealed from the public. Consequently, even if the trial of a politician accused of corruption is reported, as the identity of the individual will not go beyond their initials, the matter will fade from memory over time and the trial process will be removed from public knowledge. For this reason, every MP who deliberately voted for this version of the law in Parliament, in my view, is living in fear of being prosecuted for corruption in the future. If that is not the case, the law can be revisited, and the provisions regarding the presumption of innocence can be amended to comply with the EU and the European Convention on Human Rights, ensuring they do not protect elected or appointed officials. From this point onwards, no resolution can be reached by scapegoating the Bar Association or the CTP. We must heighten the pressure on the ruling party MPs, forcing them to prove that they are not politicians, afraid of being tried over corruption allegations. I believe this is the most important step the Bar Association and journalist organizations must take. Furthermore, every individual must also amplify this message regarding the freedom of information to put pressure on ruling party MPs. Otherwise, darker days lie ahead.