There are two indictments, two courts and one serious allegation against the Republican People's Party (CHP) before the public today. The “Shady Congress” case at the Ankara 26th Criminal Court of First Instance; the indictment accepted by the Istanbul 40th High Criminal Court and publicly referred to as “Ekrem İmamoğlu Criminal Organization for Profit”... These formally separate files point to the same ground in terms of content: The allegation that the will of the CHP has been systematically captured.
The issue is therefore not the defense of a few defendants. The issue is whether the will of a political party has been interfered with from within, or even, more likely, whether there has been a coup d'état.
Two Indictments, One Ground - Why is Unification on the Agenda?
The Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor's Office's indictment alleges that the will of the delegates was subverted during the congress process; the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor's Office's indictment alleges that the organizational and financial mechanism allegedly established through municipalities was directed towards controlling the power within the party. The types of crimes may be different, but the allegation is the same: usurpation of the will of the party.
For this reason, the letter written by the Ankara 26th Criminal Court of First Instance to the Istanbul 40th Assize Court requesting consolidation is not a technical detail; it is an acknowledgment of the need to search for the material truth in a single file. The holistic truth cannot be reached with fragmented files.
Who is the victim? Who is the participant?
In the file of the Ankara 26th Criminal Court of First Instance, Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, who served as CHP chairman for 13 years, is named as the victim. This explains the essence of the indictment: If the will of the congress has been violated, it is not only individuals who are harmed, but the legal entity of the CHP.
However, there is no request for participation on behalf of the CHP in the file. On the contrary, Lütfü Savaş, the former CHP mayor of Hatay and the complainant, was accepted as a participant. Even more striking is the fact that CHP executives and MPs attended the defendants' trial to show moral support.
The inevitable question here is this: Is the CHP a victim or a party?
The Starkest Contradiction: Whose Lawyer is the CHP's Corporate Lawyer?
The most shocking contradiction of the file appears here. The CHP's corporate lawyer is also defending Ekrem İmamoğlu, who is alleged in the indictments to be the leader of the “Criminal Organization for Profit” and the organization that allegedly took over the CHP.
The corporate lawyer of a party is obliged to protect the rights and law of that party. However, the indictments allege that the CHP's will was captured by a structure known as the İmamoğlu organization. If this allegation is true, the CHP's lawyer should stand by the victim. If not, it should be explained why the CHP is not considered a victim in this case.
You cannot have both at the same time. But today, the CHP's lawyer is on the side of the accused and the CHP is silent. This is not a simple choice of proxy, but an institutional crisis of representation.
The Common Language of Defenses: Denial and Normalization
In the second hearing of the Ankara 26th Criminal Court of First Instance on January 13, 2026, the defenses of the defendants and their lawyers converged on a common line: “The crime cannot be understood”, accusations of witnesses as “slanderers/slanderers”, statements that do not touch on concrete evidence, and the emphasis that the case is “political”. One defense counsel even argued that “politics is a team work” and that similar situations had occurred in other parties.
This is not law. This is normalization. In criminal proceedings, the defense of “others do it too” is not a legal justification.
298 or 2820? Not Missing the Essence of the Debate
The defendants and their lawyers claimed a 6-month statute of limitations based on Law No. 298 on the Basic Provisions of Elections and Voter Registers; the Court stated that the case was filed under Law No. 2820 on Political Parties and that the nature of the crime would be evaluated at the end of the file. The essence of the technical debate is as follows: Is this a simple election violation or an organized manipulation of the party will?
The file of the Istanbul 40th High Criminal Court points to the second possibility. If the files are merged, it is likely that the scope of the crime and the penalties for the defendants will change.
Why is he under arrest and what is he accused of?
Ekrem İmamoğlu, presented as the “Presidential candidate” by the CHP administration, is under arrest at Istanbul 40th High Criminal Court on serious charges such as establishing and leading a criminal organization for profit, extortion, bribery, bid rigging, illegal recording of personal data. The indictment alleges that this structure was established not only for financial gain but also to take over the CHP.
In the face of this set of allegations, the fact that a political party does not exercise discipline, does not take the title of victim and openly supports the defendants cannot be explained either legally or politically.
“There are not two truths”: Legal Necessity and Precautionary Measures
The crux of the matter is this: At this point, it is not a question of waiting for the outcome of the criminal proceedings, but of the obligation of protective-preventive measures arising from party law and public order.
If the CHP has been taken over as described in the indictments, it is not a “preference” but a minimum condition of institutional legitimacy that those who have served in the party organs should at the very least be dismissed from office as a precautionary measure, their powers suspended and disciplinary proceedings initiated immediately.
Otherwise, i.e. when no measures are taken and institutional support for the defendants is maintained, it is inevitable that public conscience will have doubts about the authenticity of the indictment narrative.
This is not a theoretical debate. As a matter of fact, the Istanbul 45th Civil Court of First Instance suspended the current CHP Istanbul Provincial Administration by issuing an interim injunction upon the filing of a criminal case against the CHP Istanbul Provincial Administration for “shady takeover”. The Istanbul 45th Civil Court of First Instance did not say “let's wait for the outcome”; it chose the precautionary measure in the face of institutional risk.
In the Ankara 42nd Civil Court of First Instance, although the indictment accepted by the Ankara 26th Criminal Court of First Instance contained much more serious accusations and concrete evidence and this file was cited as evidence, the Court, far from issuing a “cautionary” decision, prolonged the process with hearing dates, allowed the Party administration, which allegedly seized the Party on behalf of a criminal organization, to hold the 22nd Extraordinary and 39th Ordinary Assembly by resorting to fraud against the law, and then decided to dismiss the case on the grounds that it was irrelevant.
The plaintiff applied to the legal remedy of appeal and in the meantime, the indictment of the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor's Office emerged and a criminal case was opened at the Istanbul 40th High Criminal Court.
The principle in the Istanbul 45th Civil Court of First Instance was not applied in the Ankara 42nd Civil Court of First Instance and the contradiction could not be eliminated.
Conclusion The Contradiction Must Be Eliminated - There is No Other Way
Today, the picture is clear: The current CHP leadership stands by the defendants and de facto assumes responsibility. This attitude amounts to open ownership.
This is precisely why it is a legal obligation to resolve the contradiction without delay. Because there are two possibilities and they cannot both be true at the same time:
If the CHP has been taken over as described in the indictments, it is legally inevitable that those who have served in the party organs are immediately suspended from office, their powers are suspended and disciplinary processes are carried out. Otherwise, the allegation of a “takeover” is accepted, but this acceptance is not legally required, which is not possible in law or politics.
If the CHP leadership stands by the defendants, defends them and assumes responsibility, then the narrative of the “takeover of the party” in the indictments would be confirmed by the practices of the Party leaders. In this case, it indicates that the Party's institutional will is no more.
In the presence of files alleging that its legal entity has been “seized” by an organized structure, a political party immediately uses its powers arising from the Party's Statute against this organized structure in order to start purging procedures and thus render the operation futile, while on the other hand, it continues its legal struggle for the punishment of the members of the organized structure with absolute determination before the judicial authorities.
The CHP leadership, on the other hand, does the opposite and engages in discourse and practices that reinforce the allegations in the indictments that “the Party has been taken over”.
This is an unsustainable contradiction in law and politics.
Therefore, it is no longer just a question of what the judiciary decides. The issue is whether this contradiction will be resolved. Every day that it is not resolved, the law is replaced by uncertainty and politics is replaced by a crisis of legitimacy.