It's been on everyone's lips lately “absolute nullity” There is.
It is a technical legal term. But its meaning grows when it enters politics.
Let's put it in the simplest terms. Absolute nullity is not the rectification of a decision or a transaction. Invalidation from the outset. Law “it was wrong” he does not say, “this never happened” He says.
That's why it's a heavy consequence. The heaviest.
If a political party's convention is called an absolute nullity, the claim is that the will of the delegates was not free. The voting process was crippled by pressure, interest or organized manipulation. Moreover, this is not singular, but widespread and systematic.
So we are not talking about a simple procedural error. We are talking about a process that is flawed from the start.
But there is a critical point here.
Law does not work with allegations. It works with evidence.
The court looks for money traffic. It asks for correspondence. It asks for records. It compares witness testimony with documents. Most importantly, it looks to see if all this weighs heavily enough to change the outcome.
The thickness of the file is not decisive. The noise on social media is not.
Today's events in Istanbul illustrate this distinction well.
The court temporarily dismissed the provincial administration and replaced it with an interim board. But this, “the will dissolution is finalized” it doesn't mean.
This is a precaution.
This is what the court says. The case is serious, I'm freezing the status quo until the case is over.
The measure suspends the process.
The judgment determines the outcome.
This shows that the judiciary is taking the case seriously.
But we don't like to wait in this country.
Scenarios are being written while there is no decision yet.
Winners are announced before there is a verdict.
Political positions are being taken even before the file is closed.
But the law does not work in a hurry.
If it is shown with concrete evidence that the will of the delegates has been systematically violated, the court will determine the violation of will. It would annul the current result. It would either call for a new congress or return the usurped will.
Looking at this whole case from the outside, it does not appear to be a singular irregularity. The allegations are not disconnected. There are narratives, contacts and relationships moving in the same direction. This shifts the discussion from a simple procedural error to the question of the extent to which the will was freely formed. Of course the court will have the final say and the criteria will be evidence. But the talking point is now “could a mistake have been made somewhere” but the possibility of a disability that pervades the whole process.
This is precisely why hasty scenarios do no one any good. The law is driven by evidence, not backstage. Documents speak, not expectations. Whatever the outcome, the verdict must be based entirely on evidence and with a seriousness befitting the gravity of the allegations.
The rest is just noise.