The recent arrest of a prominent Turkish Cypriot lawyer, Murat Metin Hakkı, has ignited a political firestorm in Northern Cyprus, with many questioning the state of the rule of law. The public outcry over images of Hakkı being led to court in handcuffs stands in stark contrast to the month-long silence surrounding the detention of his five elderly Greek Cypriot clients, prompting a complex debate about selective conscience and deep-seated ethnic divisions on the island.
The controversy has been sharply analyzed by local commentators. In a recent critique, Turkish Cypriot economist Mertkan Hamit noted that the Turkish Cypriot public remained silent when five Greek Cypriots, some of whom had health issues, were detained for over a month, as they are viewed as the "other." However, when their lawyer, Hakkı—a familiar figure—was arrested, empathy was immediate. The powerful, concrete image of a well-known lawyer in handcuffs galvanised a reaction that the abstract detention of the Greek Cypriots failed to produce.
The five Greek Cypriot clients had been in custody for more than a month, with their detentions extended and their court cases postponed, drawing little attention. It was only after their legal representative, Hakkı, was also taken into custody that politicians, civil society groups, and social media users erupted in condemnation. Critics suggest this disparity reveals a troubling tendency to politicise justice, where the Greek Cypriots' detention was dismissed as a tit-for-tat measure in the ongoing conflict. At the same time, the lawyer's arrest provided convenient fuel for criticizing the government.
This incident has also cast a harsh light on the credibility of the legal system, particularly regarding property rights. While Turkish Cypriot authorities publicly praise the legitimacy of the Immovable Property Commission (IPC)—a mechanism recognized by the European Court of Human Rights for resolving property disputes—actions that deter and penalise applicants are seen as undermining its very foundation. This inconsistency erodes international trust and renders the law a mere political tool rather than a pillar of justice.
For those who advocate for a unified Cyprus, the episode serves as a critical test. The selective defence of rights, where one speaks out only for one's own community, weakens the moral argument for a future federal state based on equality and shared justice. Pro-reunification voices are now challenged to demonstrate that their call for justice is universal, defending the rights of Greek Cypriots in the north with the same vigour as they would for Turkish Cypriots in the south. The incident underscores that a signed peace agreement is merely a framework; true peace is built daily through mutual empathy and an unwavering commitment to justice for all, regardless of ethnicity.
Photo: The ‘ghost city’ of Cyprus, Varosha/Maras, controlled by the Turkish Armed Forces since August 1974.