The Arrest of Hüseyin Can Güner in Ankara: A Test for Turkey’s Democracy
By Sarina Tareen
Democracies become stronger when citizens feel justice is fair regardless of who is in power. The rule of law isn’t just determined by the judgments of a court. It is also determined by citizens’ faith in the institutions that give them those verdicts. Once that confidence begins to weaken, every investigation risks becoming part of a wider political struggle rather than a search for accountability. Turkey’s latest investigation into Ankara’s Çankaya Municipality has once again brought this dilemma into focus.
In a news release on 11 July 2026, the Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office announced it had issued detention warrants for 36 suspects and 27 people had been detained. Authorities issued an arrest warrant for Ankara’s Çankaya district Mayor Hüseyin Can Güner, a representative of the Republican People’s Party (CHP). The suspects were charged with creating a criminal organization, accepting and receiving bribes, and bid rigging and manipulation of public tenders. Güner has rejected the allegations. Prior to his return to Ankara, he notified prosecutors of his whereabouts, provided a key to the house and directed municipal authorities to assist investigators as much as possible. Later he said, ‘My assets are those I had before being elected as mayor. They were acquired through personal savings and inheritance. I do not have a crypto account.’ The courts should decide whether these claims are valid or not.
But the investigation comes at a time of growing political tensions in Turkey. Since the CHP won the local elections in March 2024, several opposition-controlled municipalities have been subjected to investigations of corruption. The arrest of Istanbul Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu, followed by investigations into other CHP municipalities, has increased public debate over the role of the judiciary. The government also says the courts are operating independently, but the opposition claims the investigations are politically motivated. But when politics is deeply divided, evidence alone is often not enough to convince the public. People also question the role of politics in the investigation.
This is where the real challenge begins. No public official should be above the law, and corruption should be investigated. However, individuals need to trust that the law is enforced uniformly. If they think only one political side is being targeted, trust in the justice system begins to weaken. As noted by Emmanuel Terray in Law versus Politics, the boundary between law and politics is often blurred. The real test for democratic institutions is whether they can preserve their independence even during intense political competition.
Lord Hewart, as he once said, “Justice should not merely be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. That principle is as timeless as it was 100 years ago. Trusting the public in the judiciary is not just about what the court does; it’s about how the court does it, being fair, equal, and free from political pressure.