It has emerged that Lütfü Savaş has appealed his expulsion from the CHP

Lütfü Savaş had reacted to a rally organized by the CHP and the DEM Party in Esenyurt in a post he shared on his social media account on November 3, 2024.

Targeting his party in the post he made on his social media account, Savaş had stated, "Today's CHP is busy getting 'DEM-ified.' As a party, we cannot defend those who establish ties with terrorism and derive political rent from terrorism, whoever they may be or whatever formation they may belong to." Following the post in question, Savaş was referred to the disciplinary board with a request for "permanent expulsion."

Savaş was expelled from the party on December 11, 2024. It has emerged that Savaş applied to the Ankara Duty Civil Court of First Instance on January 31, requesting the cancellation of the disciplinary penalty and the reversal of the expulsion decision.

'THE DISCIPLINARY PENALTY IS UNLAWFUL'

The petition submitted to the court by Lütfü Savaş through his lawyer included the following statements:

"The disciplinary penalty subject to the lawsuit was issued without taking into account my client's defenses, and is contrary to procedure, law, and the party charter and Disciplinary Regulations in terms of form and procedure; the penalty imposed is contrary to the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey, the Law on Political Parties No. 2820, the Republican People's Party Charter, the Republican People's Party Disciplinary Regulations, and the provisions of relevant legislation. Although it is stated that 'the entire scope of the file, evidence, complaints, and defenses have been evaluated together,' the defense request letter did not clearly state what the complaint exactly was or what it was based on, that is, what the accusation exactly was. In the defense request letter, issues such as the concrete act attributed, the legal characterization of the act, the disciplinary penalty foreseen in return, and the evidence obtained should have been notified to the person under investigation, and since the defense request letter does not meet these conditions, my client's defense was not taken in accordance with the procedure, and therefore the disciplinary penalty is unlawful in terms of formal elements."

The petition also criticized the 'City Consensus' and included the following statements:

"My client had foreseen long ago that there could be investigation processes regarding municipalities in our country recently. His effort to announce to the public the threats regarding allegations of support for terror-linked individuals and groups, which started with Esenyurt Municipality and continued with Beşiktaş Municipality, is a result of this sense of responsibility. As a nationalist individual who loves his country, he saw remaining silent about such situations as irresponsibility. During the processes before the relevant mayors were nominated, my client expressed his reservations to the then-chairman Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu. These issues were discussed within the party; the current Chairman Özgür Özel was also warned. However, despite these warnings, no changes were made and these individuals were nominated as candidates. In addition to this, the alliance made with the DEM Party, especially to win the Istanbul elections, was also criticized by my client. In line with information leaked to the media, it is seen that this agreement led to Istanbul district municipalities falling under the influence of the DEM Party. In this context, it is extremely natural to express doubts about who the mayoral candidates are and their backgrounds. My client is justified in his discomfort regarding this situation being associated with more terror-linked individuals within the party. My client acted with a sense of responsibility to prevent his party from being harmed and to draw attention to such threats. The tweet that is the subject of the decision is actually a determination and a last resort. My client shared what he knew to be true with the public in order not to be faced with the question 'You knew these, why did you stay silent?' in the future."