19.05.2026 15:01
The reinstatement decision for Lieutenant Deniz Demirtaş, who was expelled from the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) for the slogan "We are Mustafa Kemal's soldiers" at the Turkish Military Academy graduation ceremony, was suspended following an objection by the Ministry of National Defense. Thus, Deniz Demirtaş, who had returned to duty, took off his uniform for the second time.
The Ankara 21st Administrative Court had unanimously annulled the dismissal of Lieutenant Deniz Demirtaş, one of five lieutenants expelled from the Turkish Armed Forces for clashing swords and chanting "We are soldiers of Mustafa Kemal" after the official graduation ceremony of the Military Academy. The court also ruled that Demirtaş's lost pecuniary rights be paid with legal interest from the due dates.
MINISTRY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE OBJECTED, REINSTATEMENT DECISION STAYED
However, the Ministry of National Defense appealed the decision of the Ankara 21st Administrative Court dated December 26, 2025. The Ankara Regional Administrative Court's 2nd Administrative Case Division, evaluating the appeal, stayed the execution of the first instance court's decision with a majority vote on May 11, 2026.
"NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE" STATED
The Ankara 21st Administrative Court had concluded that the act of "engaging in conduct detrimental to service" attributed to Demirtaş could not be clearly and concretely demonstrated.
In the court's decision, it was stated that the message sent by Student Regiment Senior Lieutenant T.İ.A. to the battalion WhatsApp group on August 30, 2024, at 00:37, which read, "I expect everyone at the center of the stadium after the ceremony to perform some celebrations that cannot be done due to the Ceremony Regulation, that will not involve political action or misunderstanding, to carry out our traditional sword raising, and more importantly, to commemorate our brave brother, our martyr," could not be proven to have been prepared together with Demirtaş "with concrete and conclusive evidence free from any doubt."
The court noted that Demirtaş sharing a barracks room with the lieutenant who sent the message alone would not indicate his involvement in the planning, and that there was no legally acceptable concrete evidence in the file showing his participation in the process of planning the recitation of the removed oath after the ceremony.
The decision also pointed out that in the incident report, Demirtaş was not in the first ring of the circle during the oath recitation act, and it was emphasized that the evaluation of his barracks roommate, Artillery Lieutenant S.G., in his statement that Demirtaş considered the "class valedictorian's reproach to have some merit" could not be accepted as a planning activity.
With these justifications, the Ankara 21st Administrative Court annulled the Turkish Land Forces Command High Disciplinary Board's decision dated January 16, 2025, numbered 2025/23, titled "Penalty of Dismissal from the Armed Forces," finding it unlawful, and also ruled that Demirtaş's lost pecuniary rights be paid with interest.
REGIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE COURT ASSESSMENT: "PLANNING WAS DONE IN ADVANCE"
The Ankara Regional Administrative Court's 2nd Administrative Case Division, in its decision reviewing the appeal, assessed that before the graduation ceremony, requests to recite the oath removed from the regulations were conveyed to superiors on different dates, but these requests were rejected, and the Battalion Commander gave a clear order to all personnel that "the oath not included in the program and removed from the regulations will not be recited."
The court noted that despite this, within the scope of planning done the day before the ceremony, Student Regiment Senior Lieutenant T.İ.A. made a call in the battalion WhatsApp group to gather on the field after the ceremony, and that after the ceremony, the lieutenants gathered through the announcement "Class of 175 to the field" and recited the oath removed from the regulations.
In the Regional Administrative Court's decision, it was stated that as a result of evaluating the statement records, investigation report, and video recordings in the file together, it was concluded that Demirtaş was involved in the planning for reciting the removed oath, that he joined the group gathered after the ceremony despite being aware of the order, and that the act was carried out in a military location outside the program.
The decision assessed that "despite the repeated rejection of the request to recite the oath and the clear communication of the order not to recite it, the plaintiff persistently acted in defiance of the order, committing an act constituting gross indiscipline."
With these justifications, the Ankara Regional Administrative Court's 2nd Administrative Case Division decided to stay the execution of the Ankara 21st Administrative Court's decision regarding reinstatement and payment of pecuniary rights until the conclusion of the appeal review.
ONE MEMBER OF THE THREE-PERSON PANEL DISSENTED
One member of the Ankara Regional Administrative Court's 2nd Administrative Case Division panel, consisting of one president and two members, dissented from the decision. In the dissenting opinion, it was stated that following the verbal order that the oath not included in the program and removed from the regulations would not be recited, orders were obeyed and the said oath was not recited during the ceremony. The dissenting opinion stated, "Since it appears that the oath was recited among themselves after the ceremony ended and the President and state officials left the stadium; moreover, although the administration was aware that the said oath was recited by the class second during the graduation party held the night before the ceremony, no notification/warning was made that this oath would not be recited under any circumstances, it is not possible to consider the plaintiff's act within the scope of engaging in conduct detrimental to service, and since the matters asserted in the appeal petition are not of a nature to warrant staying the execution of the Administrative Court's decision, I could not join the majority decision, deeming that the request should be rejected with the addition of this justification."