ANKARA – ÖHD member Ferdi Sidar said Abdullah Öcalan’s legal status is directly linked to the resolution of the Kurdish issue, stating: “It is not sustainable to place responsibility on an actor while at the same time leaving him in a legally ambiguous position.”
The Peace and Democratic Society Process, launched following Kurdish People’s Leader Abdullah Öcalan’s call on 27 February 2025, has advanced so far through steps taken by the Kurdish Freedom Movement.
However, the process has stalled as the state and the government have neither fulfilled their promises nor taken any concrete steps at this stage. In particular, the failure to implement the roadmap that emerged from the 27 March meeting with Abdullah Öcalan has led to interpretations that the state is deliberately prolonging the process.
Ferdi Sidar, co-chair of the Ankara branch of the Association of Lawyers for Freedom (ÖHD), evaluated the current stage of the Peace and Democratic Society Process and the social and legal basis of Abdullah Öcalan’s status.
Sidar stated that Abdullah Öcalan’s legal status is not merely a matter of individual legal circumstances, but is directly connected to the resolution of the Kurdish issue. He stressed that one of the reasons previous processes failed was the absence of legal guarantees regarding this status, adding that such guarantees are vital.
Sidar said that if a framework for negotiations is being established, then its legal counterpart must also be created. He added that the absence of such a framework is unsustainable and recalled that Öcalan himself had emphasised this point.
He stated that legal status would provide appropriate working conditions and said this should not be viewed as a privilege, but rather as a guarantee for the continuation of the process.
Sidar said Abdullah Öcalan’s historical, political and social influence on the Kurdish issue must be recognised, adding that there are similar examples in international experiences. He noted that democratic negotiations can only proceed under equal conditions.
“Peace processes can only move forward under conditions where the political will of the parties is recognised, democratic politics is strengthened and legal guarantees are ensured,” he said.
Sidar also warned against reducing Abdullah Öcalan’s legal status to the framework of “a status granted by the state,” arguing that such an approach narrows the issue.
“Because what is at stake here is not the state unilaterally granting a title, but the recognition of an existing social and political reality. In other words, it is the recognition of an existing truth,” he said adding that the Kurdish issue cannot be addressed solely through a security-based approach.
Sidar further stated that Turkish Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) leader Devlet Bahçeli’s call for Abdullah Öcalan to act as a “coordinator of dissolution” risked narrowing the political space for a democratic solution. He said reducing the issue solely to disarmament would render its democratic, political and legal dimensions invisible.
Stressing that the issue must be approached in a multidimensional way and that the solution should also be multidimensional, Sidar said: “The process should move forward not only through the dissolution of the organisation, but also through issues such as mother-tongue rights, freedom of expression, political representation, trustee policies and democratic law.”
Sidar added that legal arrangements and democratic reforms are necessary in order for society to trust the process. “Lasting peace is possible not only through the silencing of weapons, but through democratic politics taking steps forward and becoming stronger. In this sense, parliament has a serious responsibility,” he said.
Recalling Abdullah Öcalan’s statement, “My status is the status of the Kurds,” Sidar said this pointed to a collective democratic solution.
Sidar continued: “In other words, the issue is not individual; it is being addressed within the framework of a social and political solution. On the other hand, the ‘right to hope’ has now become a legal issue that can no longer be postponed. This matter must be evaluated not only in terms of international law, but also in relation to Turkey’s own legal order and its claim to democratisation.”
MA / Sema Bingol