I believe that these meeting visits are courtesy visits.

Speaker of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey Mustafa Şentop visited the Parliamentary Correspondent Association (PMD) on January 10 Working Journalists’ Day and celebrated the journalists’ day.

Later, Şentop presented the Hatay künefe prepared at the TBMM Press Gate with AKP Hatay Deputies Hüseyin Yayman and Hacı Bayram Türkoğlu to the members of the press.

Asked how the künefe served during his visit to Şentop PMD was, he replied to the AKP’s Yayman, “It is fried on top and fried on the bottom.”

Şentop, stating that the heart of Turkey is the Turkish Grand National Assembly, said:

  • Sometimes friends, when it’s not what they want; They say, ‘The influence of the Parliament has diminished,’ etc. It either starts here or starts here, continues here, and ends here. As a result, the TGNA is now the place where the heart of politics in Turkey beats, as it has always been. But of course, the work done here does not mean anything in itself. They need to be known and heard. In this respect, we work together with you. You are the ones who evaluate what is happening and what is going on in the Grand National Assembly of Turkey together with the comments and reflect it to our nation.
  • Parliament is working very hard, it continues to work. In a way, you also participate in the work here with the same intensity. Happy Working Journalists Day, I congratulate you, I wish you success.


Şentop, to the question about the withdrawal of the appointment requested by the opposition parties regarding the AKP’s constitutional amendment proposal; He replied, “I don’t want to make much of an assessment, I don’t want to go into these issues as the Speaker of the Parliament.”

Şentop stated that all political parties will discuss the constitutional amendment proposal and said, “They will discuss it at the Constitutional Commission, and they will also discuss it at the General Assembly. Here they will express their views for and against. In this respect, I believe that these meeting visits are courtesy visits. The absence of it is not an issue that directly affects the process,” he said.

Şentop continued his words as follows:

  • We can say that this has been resolved clearly, implicitly or explicitly, with a social consensus, perhaps with a political consensus. A different discussion started when a proposal came, saying that a legal arrangement should be made, it should be by law. If a legal regulation is required, all parties in the Parliament expressed their opinion that a legal regulation is needed. It was discussed what this legal arrangement would be. Law or constitution? I have expressed my opinion, who have worked and struggled on this issue for years, wrote thousands of lawsuits, about headscarved teachers and students; I am someone. There are people in my own family and close circle who are victims of this. If a solution is desired, if it needs to be done by legal regulation, this solution should only be considered at the constitutional level. Because it has been tried before with the law.


  • This issue has not been resolved by law before. The solution with the Constitution should be considered as a way out. In addition, the legal regulation that brings freedom here is not a law. If you do it by law, you make it a law-based freedom. Therefore, by amending the law and introducing a prohibition, you reduce it to a freedom given by law. The Constitution is a text that can hardly be changed, a text on which more consensus is desired. There will be a stronger legal guarantee with the constitution. Therefore, this point has been reached. With the text, there may be discussions and discussions in the commission, in the General Assembly.
  • In my opinion, everyone says that it should be resolved in principle. Again, it is generally said that it should be resolved by a legal arrangement. Then, if a permanent solution is sincerely desired, it is possible with a constitutional amendment. When I look at it from this angle, I think it will pass. But if it is approached with some arguments like you have an eyebrow over your eye, if that’s the case here, other things are happening in other commissions, and we don’t want this change, of course, there is the opportunity to find some excuses. It should not be forgotten that this issue has come. We should not forget where and how it came to Turkey’s agenda.”

Şentop said the following regarding the immunity files of CHP Mersin Deputy Ali Mahir Basarir and IYI Party Kocaeli Deputy Lütfü Türkkan:

  • As you know, the Mixed Commission is a mixed commission consisting of the members of the Constitution and Justice Commission. The immunity files are there. Of course, I am the person who previously chaired this commission. Here, it is possible to set the agenda in two ways. First, the chairman of the commission sets the agenda, and second, the commission convenes upon the proposal of a certain number of members of the commission. Re-voting is done on the agenda, some issues are separate from the agenda. Undoubtedly there are many files. There are similar and dissimilar sides of the decision. You know, in this period, the immunities were lifted before. There are also files that look like files, there are files that are claimed to be similar. This is something the Commission should consider. It is not right for me to interfere in this matter as the Speaker of the Parliament.

Şentop said the following about bringing the election forward:

  • Legally, technically, the date of the election is determined in accordance with the Constitution and the law. An election the day before, even a week before, is technically an early election. There is no early election legislation. Why do we call early elections, we say it as a political term. In order to talk about an early election politically, the elections must be brought forward in a meaningful way. The reasons and the duration must be of a meaningful nature. It’s not that long to talk about, the reasons are more technical reasons. There is a question of pilgrimage, they will go on pilgrimage. As of June 18, there is a possibility that about 40 thousand people will be on the pilgrimage. It is not possible for them to vote in any way. Some friends say that they are at the customs, but those who vote at the customs are those who are registered on the foreign voters list. Those registered on the electoral list inside cannot vote at customs. The important number cannot be ignored. In that sense, it’s like a technical fix.”