The process in the Republican People's Party (CHP), starting with the 38th Ordinary Assembly, leading to the 21st Extraordinary Assembly and finally to the 22nd Extraordinary Assembly and the Istanbul Provincial Congress, is no longer an ordinary internal party debate. This process has turned into a serious constitutional debate that brings together the law of political parties, electoral law, judicial decisions, criminal investigations, the supervisory authority of the Supreme Board of Elections (YSK) and the issue of how political legitimacy is produced in the same file.<\/p>\n
The \u201cnullity\u201d decision in the absolute nullity\/ nullity case before the Ankara 42nd Civil Court of First Instance, which is currently being examined by the 36th Civil Chamber of Ankara BAM, may appear to be a technical procedural decision on the surface. However, when the file is evaluated in its entirety, it is clearly seen that the decisions of the SBE that continue the election processes are behind this result.<\/p>\n
This is because the court relied on the new district congresses, the Istanbul Provincial Congress, the 21st and 22nd Extraordinary Congresses, the new organs elected at these congresses and the electoral board certifications in reaching its conclusion that the case was irrelevant. In other words, the YSK's \u201ccontinuation\u201d decisions have effectively changed the ground of the judicial debate.<\/p>\n
At this point, the main break occurred with the interim decision of the Istanbul 45th Civil Court of First Instance dated 02.09.2025. The court suspended the CHP Istanbul Provincial Chairman and administration, appointed an interim board, suspended the congress delegates, and halted the Istanbul district congresses and the provincial congress process. Moreover, it explicitly stated that the requirement of \u201capproximate proof\u201d that the will of the delegates may have been influenced for various benefits was met.<\/p>\n
Nevertheless, the SBE considered the suspension of the district and provincial congresses in Istanbul as \u201ccomplete illegality\u201d and adopted an approach that allowed the process to continue.<\/p>\n
A very careful distinction must be made here.<\/p>\n
The YSK's approach to the Istanbul district congresses and provincial congresses is not the same as the allegations of illegality in the 21st and 22nd Extraordinary Assemblies. In terms of Istanbul, the debate is about whether the court measure can stop the election process. However, the allegations regarding the 21st and 22nd Extraordinary Assemblies are directly related to the establishment conditions, agenda, delegate structure, nomination processes, absolute majority calculation and voting authority of the assemblies.<\/p>\n
I first applied to the \u00c7ankaya 4th District Electoral Board for the annulment of both the 21st Extraordinary Assembly and the 22nd Extraordinary Assembly, and then to the Supreme Electoral Council (YSK) for complete illegality upon the rejection decisions. By the way, I learned from oral testimonies that the judge who evaluated my objections at the \u00c7ankaya 4th District Electoral Board was the same judge who was the President of the Electoral Board at the said Assemblies.<\/p>\n
21. The allegations I put forward in my petition of objection with respect to the Extraordinary Assembly;<\/p>\n
- Determining the place, day, time and agenda of the congress without the decision of the Party Assembly;<\/p>\n
- The Chairperson exercising his\/her authority to set the agenda when he\/she only has the authority to call the meeting;<\/p>\n
- Holding the congress in an accelerated manner in order to neutralize the absolute nullity case at the Ankara 42nd Civil Court of First Instance and the possible call committee\/trustee decision; - Keeping the nomination periods unreasonably short;<\/p>\n
- De facto blocking of access to the hall and delegates;<\/p>\n
- Preparing the ground for a single-candidate presidential election;<\/p>\n
-Operation of the voting method in a way that cripples the will of the delegates<\/p>\n
were the allegations.<\/p>\n
However, the most striking picture emerged in terms of the 22nd Extraordinary Assembly.<\/p>\n
Again, in the decision of the \u00c7ankaya 4th District Election Board, which was issued upon my objection, Article 43 of the CHP Statute was cited first with regard to the 22nd Extraordinary Congress of the CHP. However, Article 43 refers to \u201cextraordinary congresses\u201d and is applicable to provincial and district congresses. The party congress, on the other hand, is a separate institution and is regulated separately under the title of \u201cExtraordinary Congress\u201d in Article 48 of the CHP Statute. This distinction is not formal but substantive. Conducting a convention under the wrong norm is not an ordinary error of interpretation, but a fundamental cause of complete illegality that cripples the legal basis of the convention.<\/p>\n
The numerical picture is even more dire.<\/p>\n
In the decision of \u00c7ankaya 4th District Election Board, it is stated that the delegate suspension list 1309 delegates<\/strong> was suspended, and after the objections, the number of delegates to vote was announced. 1127<\/strong> was finalized as the CHP Headquarters, while the CHP Headquarters 662 congress delegates<\/strong> based on a notarized application.<\/p>\n The critical calculation here is this:<\/p>\n The total number of members of the Assembly 1309<\/strong> is a simple majority:<\/p>\n 1309 \/ 2 = 654,5<\/strong><\/p>\n The simple majority calculation is not just a simple arithmetic process. Considering the disputes regarding the status of delegates and natural delegates, which were rendered moot by the Istanbul 45th Civil Court of First Instance's injunction, it should have been examined separately whether 662 signatures constituted a real and undisputed absolute majority.<\/p>\n Full number of delegates at the CHP's 38th Ordinary Congress 667 delegates.<\/strong> If the Istanbul congress delegates suspended by the Istanbul 45th Civil Court of First Instance's injunction and their natural delegate status are excluded, the calculation of the \u201cabsolute majority\u201d cannot simply be based on \u201c1127 delegates who will vote\u201d.<\/p>\n The question that the SBE and the District Electoral Board had to answer in a fundamental way was this:<\/p>\n Simple majority according to the total number of members?<\/strong>, or is it a later finalized according to the number of voting delegates?<\/strong> will be calculated?<\/p>\n The absolute majority is not just an arithmetic calculation. Considering the disputes regarding the status of 196 delegates and natural delegates, which were rendered moot by the Istanbul 45th Civil Court of First Instance's injunction, it should have been examined separately whether the 662 signatures constituted the real and undisputed absolute majority required by the statute.<\/p>\n Article 48\/5 of the CHP Bylaws states that \u201cif the number of members of the congress requesting an extraordinary convention meets the absolute majority of the total number of members\u201d. The criterion here is not \u201cthe number of delegates to vote\u201d but \u201cthe total number of members of the convention\u201d. Despite this, it was deemed sufficient to put the vote of confidence and election item on the agenda based on 662 signatures.<\/p>\n This leads to the following numerical contradiction:<\/p>\n When these figures are evaluated together, whether the number 662 is enough to put the vote of confidence and election items on the agenda is in itself an issue that will determine the fate of the congress. Because 662 is below the threshold of 667. If the absolute majority is calculated correctly, it is not possible to put both a vote of confidence and an election item on the agenda of the 22nd Extraordinary Assembly.<\/p>\n This is where the lawlessness begins.<\/p>\n Because if the statute is clear and the number calculation is wrong, there is no longer a simple procedural deficiency. The agenda of the congress was set incorrectly, the vote of confidence and election clause was unlawfully executed, and accordingly the elections of the General Chairman, the Party Assembly and the Supreme Disciplinary Board were disrupted.<\/p>\n The second serious problem is notary signatures.<\/p>\n The CHP Chairman made a public statement that \u201cmore than 1000 delegates called for a convention with notarized signatures\u2019; however, the number of signatures reported in the decision of the election board 662<\/strong> is seen to be the same. There is a big difference between these two. There is at least a difference between the claim of over 1000 signatures and 662 signatures. 338 people<\/strong> there is a difference. This difference is not only a difference in political discourse; it is a difference that directly affects the basis and legitimacy of the convention's call.<\/p>\n The third serious problem is the time it takes to collect signatures.<\/p>\n Article 48 of the Statute stipulates that one-fifth of the members of the congress Within a 15-day period<\/strong> The Constitution regulates that an extraordinary convention can be called with notarized signatures. On the other hand, the objection states that the signatures started to be collected on 04.09.2025 and the application was filed on 05.09.2025. That is to say, the 15-day period was not actually executed; a picture has emerged as if the convention was called with notarized signatures within 1-2 days.<\/p>\n The fourth serious problem is the combination of a vote of confidence and elections.<\/p>\n 22nd Extraordinary Assembly is on the agenda:<\/p>\n Article 5: Separate votes of confidence on the General Chairman, the Party Assembly and the High Disciplinary Board,<\/p>\n Article 6 included elections for the Presidency, Party Assembly and Supreme Disciplinary Board.<\/p>\n However, in order for this agenda to be established, the absolute majority requirement of 48\/5 must be met. While this condition is disputed, running the vote of confidence and the election items in the same congress disqualifies the outcome of the congress from the outset.<\/p>\n The fifth grave problem is the fate of bodies that receive a vote of no confidence.<\/p>\n As stated in the objection, the Presidium of the Assembly conducted the vote of confidence\/no-confidence in violation of the law; the General Chairman, Party Assembly and Supreme Disciplinary Board members were able to re-nominate and vote despite the vote of no confidence. However, in electoral law, the re-nomination and voting of organs that were dismissed with a vote of no-confidence means \u201cvoting by an unauthorized person\u201d and \u201cinfluencing the electoral process by a person whose legal capacity has expired\u201d. This is at the center of the discussion on complete illegality\/incompleteness in the SBE's jurisprudence.<\/p>\n The sixth serious problem is the Istanbul delegates.<\/p>\n Istanbul 45th Civil Court of First Instance issued an injunction 196 congress delegates<\/strong> It is argued that he was suspended from office. Nevertheless, it is stated that some of these delegates, as well as persons who should not have been candidates or should not have voted, were influential in the process. If persons who were not entitled to vote cast their votes at the convention, this is not only an \u201cirregularity affecting the result\u201d but also a cause of complete illegality that directly calls into question the very existence of the electoral process.<\/p>\n The seventh serious problem is the denial of access to information and documents.<\/p>\n The signature lists, delegate lists, absolute majority calculation and the documents underlying the decision were requested; however, \u00c7ankaya 4th District Election Board did not fulfill the request for information and documents with its letter dated 25.09.2025. In the application for complete illegality, it was clearly stated that this situation eliminated the possibility of basing the application for complete illegality and I requested the examination of my application for complete illegality with an additional petition that I will submit after the information and documents that constitute the basis of the rejection decision of \u00c7ankaya 4th District Electoral Board are given. However, on the day my petition was submitted, an unjustified rejection decision was issued without any evaluation of my allegations of complete illegality and my request for information and documents.<\/p>\n When a lawyer looks at this picture, he cannot help but ask the following questions:<\/p>\n In the YSK's decision no. 2025\/348, the conflicts of norms, absolute majority calculation, notary signatures, Istanbul delegates, vote of confidence processes and unauthorized voting allegations described in detail above were not discussed one by one; the decision was essentially concluded with the logic that \u2018the convention was held\u2019. However, this is precisely the point: If the convention's founding conditions, agenda, absolute majority, voting authority and delegate structure are flawed, saying \u201cthe convention was held\u201d does not eliminate the complete illegality.<\/p>\n It is against this backdrop that the Ankara 42nd Civil Court of First Instance's decision of \u201cno subject matter\u201d emerged. A new political reality was created thanks to the YSK's decisions that continued the processes of district congresses, provincial congresses, the 21st Extraordinary Assembly and the 22nd Extraordinary Assembly, and the court concluded that the case was irrelevant based on this new reality.<\/p>\n Therefore, the real debate is this:<\/p>\n Did the SBE apply electoral law here, or did it operate a legitimacy production mechanism that effectively eliminated the effect of ongoing judicial processes?<\/p>\n Because it's on one side:<\/p>\n On the other side:<\/p>\n This is the essence of the CHP absolute nullity case.<\/p>\n If an electoral process was conducted with clear norm errors, disputed absolute majority calculations, alleged unauthorized voting, suspended delegates and blocked access to the underlying documents, and yet the YSK says \u201cthere is no complete illegality\u201d without responding to these allegations one by one, the problem is not only an internal issue of the CHP or a matter of judicial power.<\/p>\n This is a question of the limits of electoral law and judicial review in Turkey, and the question to be asked today is this:<\/p>\n Has the SBE actually examined the complete illegality?<\/p>\n Or did the decisions that ignored the complete illegality produce a new political reality that effectively rendered the absolute nullity case before the Ankara 42nd Civil Court of First Instance moot?<\/p>\n If it were not for the SBE's continuation and ratification decisions; The Ankara 42nd Civil Court of First Instance's decision that the case is \u201cirrelevant\u201d is currently pending review by the 36th Civil Chamber of the Ankara Court of Appeals. According to media reports, the 36th Civil Chamber has requested the prosecutor's investigation files, criminal and civil case files for review. However, what is decisive for the Ankara 42nd Civil Court of First Instance's decision of irrelevance is not only the fact that new congresses were held, but also the decisions of the Supreme Electoral Board of Turkey (YSK) that continued and ratified the Istanbul Provincial Congress and the 21st and 22nd Extraordinary Congresses.<\/p>\n For this reason, it is imperative for the 36th Civil Chamber of Ankara BAM to evaluate not only the criminal and civil files, but also the YSK's proceedings regarding the Istanbul Provincial Congress and the 21st and 22nd Extraordinary Assembly processes, as well as the applications for complete illegality, in order to reveal the material truth.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The YSK's approach to the Istanbul district congresses and provincial congresses that \u201cthe suspension is complete illegality\u201d is not the same as the allegations of complete illegality made against the 21st and 22nd Extraordinary Assemblies.<\/p>","protected":false},"author":21,"featured_media":285780,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[286],"tags":[289],"class_list":["post-285778","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-yazarlar","tag-manset"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/285778","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/21"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=285778"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/285778\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":285781,"href":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/285778\/revisions\/285781"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/285780"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=285778"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=285778"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=285778"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n
\n
\n
\n
\nIstanbul Provincial Congress, 21st Extraordinary Congress, 22nd Extraordinary Congress
\nand new party organs would not have emerged, and the Ankara 42nd Civil Court of First Instance would not have reached the conclusion of \u2018irrelevance\u2019. Therefore, the issue under discussion today is not only the CHP's congresses, but also the de facto and constitutional impact of the YSK decisions on the ongoing judicial processes.<\/p>\n