Backlash from CHP against Kılıçdaroğlu's remarks

Gül Çiftci, one of the legal experts within the CHP, criticized the assessments made by Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu during his recent television appearance via social media. Çiftci described Kılıçdaroğlu's approach during the live broadcast, particularly regarding the investigations launched into party mayors and municipalities, as a "major contradiction."

Criticizing Kılıçdaroğlu for claiming on one hand that the judiciary is not independent, while on the other hand preemptively accepting the allegations and files opened against CHP municipalities, Çiftci stated, "Beyond being a major contradiction, he is also clearly disregarding the presumption of innocence."

Pointing out that Kılıçdaroğlu said, "I have not read all of these indictments," yet still issued definitive judgments on the files, Çiftci noted that the essence of the right to a fair trial is being harmed.

The CHP legal expert highlighted the following points in her statements:

"On one hand, he says 'the judiciary is not independent,' and on the other, he preemptively accepts as true the investigations conducted by that same judiciary against CHP mayors, party officials, and elected representatives... Beyond being a major contradiction, he is also clearly disregarding the presumption of innocence."

Emphasizing that the presumption of innocence is not an abstract principle, Gül Çiftci noted that it is a concrete legal guarantee and must be valid for every citizen:

"The presumption of innocence is not an abstract legal principle. It is the foundation of the rule of law, the right to a fair trial, and the legal security of all citizens. If there is no final court decision regarding a person, especially if that person is a target of a politicized judicial system, using expressions like 'briber,' 'dirty,' or 'an element that needs to be purged' is incompatible with both law and conscience."

While stating that the expression "these are not political cases" voiced during the broadcast on Sözcü TV cannot be accepted under conditions where the judiciary in Turkey has become politicized, Çiftci also recalled that it is generally accepted that the same judiciary makes decisions for political reasons in other cases.

Çiftci also opposed the approach of "if no lawsuit is filed, it is accepted" and issued the following warning:

"'If no lawsuit is filed, it is accepted' is also legally unacceptable. In criminal law, the burden of proof does not lie with the accused. No one can be forced to prove their innocence."

Çiftci continued her criticisms as follows:

"The statements regarding the party congress process also carry the same contradiction. While saying 'I am not a party to this case,' the political outcome of the court decision is accepted. You will both say you don't know, say you are not a party to the file, and target the elected management of the CHP with concepts of suspicion, filth, and purging. This is not called consistency."

Çiftci concluded her remarks by stating that the approach regarding political immunity in Turkey contains dangers that could target the opposition:

"The statement 'I would have wanted my immunity to be lifted' is also extremely heavy in terms of Turkey's recent political memory. Turkey has experienced in the past what consequences this approach leads to. In a politicized judicial system, lifting immunities does not create a ground for acquittal before the law; it opens the door for the liquidation of the opposition through the judiciary. Defending the same mistake again today is an issue beyond political shortsightedness."