TAM Party: Parliamentary Office Does Not Grant Immunity From Judicial Review

In a written statement, the committee underlined that being a member of parliament is not a status that exempts an individual from judicial scrutiny and that legislative immunity acquired through parliamentary office cannot be interpreted as a personal privilege or an individual right.

The statement noted that legislative immunity is not an individual constitutional right granted to MPs, but rather a constitutional safeguard intended to ensure the continuity of democratic representation and to protect the will of parliament from pressure. It added that expanding the scope of immunity beyond its intended purpose would clearly contradict the principle of the rule of law and undermine the principle of equality. Therefore, while individuals accused of crimes are subject to trial, excluding MPs from judicial oversight is incompatible with the rule of law.

Drawing attention to the fact that judicial independence and impartiality are among the indispensable elements of a state governed by the rule of law, the statement recalled that, under the Constitution of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, the judiciary performs its duties independently, without being bound by instructions from any organ, authority, or person. It emphasized that claiming the judiciary is given instructions, or creating such a perception, is extremely dangerous for the constitutional order and damages the principle of separation of powers.

In line with this approach, the statement said that TAM Party, as explicitly stated in its party programme, has adopted as a fundamental objective not only the limitation of legislative immunity but also the strengthening of a fully independent and impartial judiciary, free from political influence, through constitutional guarantees. It added that the party programme clearly includes initiatives to introduce constitutional amendments reinforcing judicial independence and impartiality and to take these amendments to a referendum.

The statement stressed that restricting parliamentary immunity solely to speech immunity is a natural consequence of the rule of law. It noted that MPs’ votes and statements made from the parliamentary rostrum would remain fully protected under absolute non-liability, while no immunity from judicial proceedings would apply to acts outside this scope. This goal, the committee said, is aimed not at limiting political representation but at limiting impunity.

It further stated that a state governed by the rule of law is one in which political responsibility and criminal responsibility are distinct, but neither eliminates the other. Transforming legislative immunity or political office into mechanisms that effectively make judicial accountability impossible would be contrary not only to the letter but also to the spirit of the constitution.

The statement concluded by reiterating that parliamentary office is not a shield against the judiciary and that legislative immunity is not an absolute constitutional right that individuals may claim. It emphasized that, as a core political objective, TAM Party upholds both the restriction of parliamentary immunity to speech immunity and the strengthening of full judicial independence through constitutional guarantees as essential requirements of a political system based on the supremacy of law.