Cem Duran UzunIn the case concerning the 38th Ordinary Congress of the Republican People’s Party (CHP), held on November 2023, which has occupied Türkiye’s agenda for approximately two and a half years, the 36th Civil Chamber of the Ankara Regional Court of Justice issued a ruling declaring the congress null and void on 21 May.
According to the court ruling, both this Congress and the Istanbul Provincial Congress held on October 8, 2023, were deemed absolutely null and void for having been conducted in violation of the principles of intra-party democracy, equality, and free will.
Contrary to the claims of some opposition figures, the Court did not appoint a trustee administration (or a convention committee) to lead the CHP after the absolute nullity ruling.
Instead, it ruled that the chairman in office before the annulled Congress, Kemal Kilicdaroglu, together with the members of the Party Assembly and the High Disciplinary Board, would provisionally resume their duties until the decision becomes final.
In other words, rather than appointing an external candidate, the administration most recently elected by CHP delegates was reinstated.
How did the judicial process begin and develop?
During and after the CHP Congress in November 2023, numerous allegations of irregularities and corruption were raised directly by CHP members and delegates.
Following applications submitted by CHP delegates, these allegations soon led to both criminal proceedings and civil lawsuits seeking the annulment of the Congress.
The plaintiffs, who had long served as CHP members and delegates, filed separate lawsuits seeking the annulment of the Congress before the Ankara 7th, 17th, 31st, 40th, and 42nd Civil Courts of First Instance.
Among the most prominent of these figures was Lutfi Savas, who had served two terms as Mayor of the Hatay Metropolitan Municipality under the CHP.
The plaintiffs sought annulment on the grounds that numerous irregularities had been committed to manipulate the will of the delegates during the Congress process; that delegates had been given money and other benefits; that they or their relatives had been employed in various municipalities or granted political positions; and that they had been subjected to pressure through various means.
Following these allegations and applications by the plaintiffs, prosecutors launched investigations into acts deemed criminal in nature and initiated various criminal cases.
Therefore, alongside the civil lawsuits seeking the annulment of the Congress, a parallel criminal judicial process concerning crimes allegedly committed during this period has also continued.
The lawsuits filed before different courts seeking the annulment of the Congress were consolidated before the Ankara 42nd Civil Court of First Instance due to their relation to the same matter and were heard there as a single case.
In this case, the Court rejected the request for annulment without examining the allegations or addressing the case's merits.
The rejection was based on the argument that the case had become devoid of subject matter due to subsequent CHP congresses.
Following the filing of these lawsuits, the CHP sought to prevent a possible annulment ruling by convening successive congresses. Accordingly, the Court ruled that the lawsuits had become moot due to these subsequent congresses.
Upon appeal of the first-instance court’s decision, the 36th Civil Chamber of the Ankara Regional Court of Justice ruled that the subsequent congresses did not remedy the alleged unlawfulness, examined the merits of the case, and reviewed the allegations.
The Regional Court of Justice ruled that congresses convened by an administration formed after a congress deemed absolutely null and void could not themselves be considered valid.
Grounds for a ruling of absolute nullity
First and foremost, the Court concluded that the will of the delegates had been corrupted.
Based on criminal investigations in the case file, indictments, witness testimony, reports from the Financial Crimes Investigation Board (MASAK), official correspondence, and investigative reports, the Court determined that the voting preferences of certain delegates had been influenced by relationships of interest and benefit.
According to the Court, promises of money, jobs, candidacies, and other benefits had been decisive in the Congress's outcome.
The decision was based on findings that certain delegates at both the Congress and the Istanbul Provincial Congress had been given money, promised employment in municipalities, offered candidacies or political positions, and provided with various benefits, such as shopping cards.
It was also concluded that delegates’ votes had been monitored and that the secrecy of the delegates’ will, which should have remained confidential, had been compromised.
The Court further found that some delegates had been asked to photograph and send their ballots, thereby preventing the free formation of the electoral will.
Thus, it was determined that the principles of intra-party democracy and equality had been violated.
Referring to Article 69 of the Constitution and Articles 4 and 93 of the Political Parties Law, which require elections for political party organs to be conducted in accordance with democratic principles, party statutes, and the principle of equality among members, the Court concluded that there had been a violation of mandatory provisions of law.
The ruling stated that the irregularities alleged to have occurred during the Congress did not merely constitute grounds for ordinary annulment, but rather amounted to violations of public order and mandatory legal rules, thereby resulting in absolute nullity.
On these grounds, the Court issued a ruling of absolute nullity and provisionally ordered the reinstatement of the previous administration pending the decision's finality.
Since the Congress was annulled retroactively from the date on which it was held, the Court ruled for a return to the situation existing prior to November 4–5, 2023, allowing Kemal Kilicdaroglu and the party organs of that period to remain in office.
In summary, the Court concluded that the will of the delegates at both the CHP Grand Congress and the Istanbul Provincial Congress had been compromised by various forms of personal gain, and that this situation was contrary to intra-party democracy, equality, and public order, thereby rendering it absolutely null.
When the process outlined above is examined closely, it becomes clear that what occurred cannot be characterised as an external judicial intervention in the internal affairs of the CHP.
Rather, the process constitutes a judicial proceeding initiated by applications from certain delegates who had long served as CHP members, executives, and mayors.
As the allegations were supported by strong and concrete evidence, the Court issued a ruling invalidating the decision and, as an interim measure, reassigned authority to the previous administration.
