Request for trustee appointment to Saadet Party rejected
The court has decided to reject the application in the lawsuit filed to cancel the 9th Ordinary Congress of the Saadet Party and to appoint a trustee to the party administration.
12punto
The lawsuit filed over allegations of irregularities in the Saadet Party's 9th Ordinary Grand Congress, held on November 24, 2024, has been concluded at the Ankara 37th Civil Court of First Instance.
According to ANKA, the lawyer for the plaintiff, former Van Provincial Chairman Mehmet Necip Yavuzer, stated during the hearing that the appellate court decisions submitted to the file by the opposing party concerned the public oversight of political parties. Arguing that the lawsuit in question was directed at the rights of party members, the lawyer requested that the case be accepted.
"LAWSUIT FILED FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES" DEFENSE
Saadet Party lawyers argued that the lawsuit was filed after the one-month period specified in the Law on Political Parties had expired. The party lawyers requested that the case be rejected on both procedural and substantive grounds, arguing that it was filed with political motives.
The lawyers further stated that the processes subject to the lawsuit had already passed through the oversight of the electoral judiciary. Emphasizing that the party's organizational structure could not be ignored, the defense side noted that the oversight of political parties falls under the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court and requested the dismissal of the case.
Following the statements of the parties, the presiding judge decided to reject the lawsuit. The decision stated that the right to appeal is open.
WHAT ALLEGATIONS WERE INCLUDED IN THE PETITION?
In the petition submitted to the court by former Saadet Party Van Provincial Chairman Mehmet Necip Yavuzer and those accompanying him, it was alleged that congresses in many provinces and districts, including Ankara, Istanbul, Izmir, Konya, and Gaziantep, were not held within the legal timeframe.
The plaintiffs claimed that 789 of the 1,026 delegates who voted in the congress did not possess delegate status. Arguing that the congress was therefore held unlawfully, the plaintiffs had requested the cancellation of the congress.