SPEAKER_00 0:00

When a ship sinks, one must look not only at the captain or the crew, but at the entire chain of command that sent it on its voyage. Learning that a loved one is missing is in itself an indescribable pain. Yet this pain is made all the more unbearable in a situation where the number of missing persons changes by the hour, where families hear a different figure with every statement, and where they wait, torn between hope and fear. Of course, our priority today is to locate the missing, ensure the recovery of the injured, and provide families with accurate, regular, and reliable information. However, right in the midst of this immense grief, we have another responsibility, not to allow the truth to be left incomplete, because this disaster is not a matter that can be pinned on a few individuals and swept under the carpet a few days later. This incident, which violated the right to life, began long before the moment the ship began taking on water, during a repair, an inspection, the granting of an unlawful permit, a deficiency that was overlooked or dismissed, or at any stage where someone said it'll be fine. It is precisely the task of the investigation to bring this to light. The actions of the captain and the crew will of course be investigated. However, if we limit the investigation solely to this aspect, we will only be looking at a fragment of the truth. Because it is not the captain alone who sends a ship out to sea. There is the ship's owner, there is the operator, there are those responsible for technical matters, there are those who carry out maintenance, there are those who carry out inspections, there are those who issue the certificates, and ultimately there is an administrative mechanism that authorizes the ship to set sail. For the past two days, information has been circulating that the vessel was involved in an accident years ago and was subsequently repaired, that its last technical inspection took place in june 2026, and that the necessary sailing permits were in place. At the same time, the fracture in the bow of the vessel, the problems reportedly encountered during the evacuation, and the behaviour of the crew have also been raised as matters for investigation. At this stage, statements such as the necessary permits were in place, or there were no issues with the legal procedures are not sufficient to uncover the truth. Whenever a serious debate about oversight arises in this country, we are presented with the same sort of defence. So does the matter end simply because the permits were in place? No. The mere existence of a permit does not automatically prove that it was issued in accordance with the proper procedure. The existence of a technical report does not demonstrate that the inspection on which the report is based was adequate. The existence of a certificate does not preclude discussion of whether the on-site inspection was carried out as required. This is precisely where the law comes into play. Furthermore, particularly in a period where incompetence, lack of oversight, and professional negligence have almost become a management habit, the phrase they had the permits should prompt us to ask more questions rather than reassure us. Because sometimes a disaster does not stem from a single major error. It arises from a series of minor oversights piling up on top of one another. One person fails to notice, another fails to ask, yet another signs off. A shortcoming is overlooked. Ultimately, all these oversights converge to claim a human life. What transpired on the very first day of the investigation is of considerable importance. Although the police had obtained arrest warrants for a total of sixteen people the day before, the fact that only nine were brought before the court that morning, prompting the court to request that the others also be brought before it, is not merely a procedural matter. Subsequently, the order to bring before the court individuals, including officials from the Port Authority and Company shareholders, and to immediately launch an investigation into five of them constitutes a significant judicial directive. The aim is not to collectively declare anyone guilty, quite the contrary, a process must be established in which no one is presumed guilty from the outset, but neither is anyone excluded from the investigation simply by virtue of their office, role or position. This is precisely what judicial assurance entails. Whilst all this is unfolding, there is another matter that particularly troubles me. In the immediate aftermath of a disaster, one of the state's most fundamental duties is to provide reliable information. How many people have been rescued, how many have lost their lives, how many are still missing? Where and from whom will families obtain information? All these questions are essential to crisis management. However, in a situation where even the number of missing persons is changing, and people awaiting news of their loved ones are left in a state of uncertainty, I do not consider it appropriate for the responsible minister, Erhan Arickley, to share the ship's classification, compliance and captaincy certificates with the public. Because those documents are already the subject of the investigation, the minister may say the documents exist. However, the minister cannot determine the legal and technical validity of that document, nor can I. Social media certainly cannot. This is a matter for an independent investigation and judicial process, which will examine all the evidence. Furthermore, sharing a report does not prove that those who prepared it or those who acted on the basis of it have fully discharged their duties. What political authorities should be doing at this stage is not trying to clear their own names, but to ensure the investigation proceeds unhindered. In other words, the state's role is not to defend itself but to manage the crisis. The actions or omissions of everyone connected to the incident, from the captain to the crew, from company executives to shareholders, and from those responsible for maintenance and technical matters, to public officials involved in the inspection and licensing processes, must be investigated. Regardless of where, to whom, or to which authority the trail leads. Another distinction must not be overlooked. Criminal liability is not the same as political responsibility. The fact that a minister has not committed a criminal offence does not mean that they bear no political responsibility. If the state's regulatory system has failed, if there is no coordination between institutions, if the necessary checks have not been carried out, or accurate information could not be provided to families during the crisis, there are separate political consequences for all of this. Minister Erhan Arkler says I will resign if necessary. The issue here is not to hide behind the phrase if necessary. Political accountability cannot be tied solely to the outcome of a criminal sentence that a court may one day hand down. The greatest mistake that could be made in the wake of this disaster is to channel public anger onto a few individuals and close the case there. Justice is not achieved by identifying a few scapegoats, nor is the aim to put as many people as possible in the dock. The aim is to uncover the whole truth. A thorough investigation to be carried out today and the subsequent trial are not merely about settling accounts with the past. They are also necessary to ensure that other people do not die in the same way tomorrow. This is what we owe to those who lost their lives. This is what we owe to the injured. This is what we owe to the families waiting for a phone call, whose eyes cannot tear themselves away from the sea at the harbour. And this is our duty to this society. If they have no intention of taking political responsibility, then at the very least they should step aside from the judicial process. Instead of trying to exonerate themselves, they should stand by the families. They should mobilize all available resources to locate the missing. They must provide accurate information. They must allow the police, the prosecution and the courts to carry out their duties without any political interference. If they cannot even do that, they should at least have the decency to resign. Because in a place where people have lost their lives, where they are injured, and where families are still waiting for their loved ones, without taking their eyes off the sea, the time has come not for defence but for truth, accountability and answering for one's actions.