New details emerge in CHP congress case: Major contradictions in witness testimonies
Journalist İsmail Saymaz wrote that a large portion of the witness testimonies in the lawsuit filed regarding the CHP Congress are unverified and contradictory. Saymaz emphasized that the indictment is based on rumors and was prepared with statements that lack evidentiary value.
12punto
Halk TV columnist İsmail Saymaz wrote that a significant portion of the witness statements included in the case file concerning the CHP Congress have not been verified and are inconsistent.
In his column today, Saymaz described the case in question as a “plot case against the CHP” and claimed that the indictment was shaped largely by rumors and unverified information.
In his article, Saymaz recalled that the phone conversation between Istanbul Metropolitan Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu and then-CHP Chair Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu on the day of the congress was recorded and circulated to the press.
However, he stated that there was no impropriety in this conversation, and that Kılıçdaroğlu had even openly confirmed the conversation earlier in an interview with the newspaper Sözcü.
LÜTFÜ SAVAŞ’S STATEMENT DOES NOT MATCH THE FACTS
Saymaz wrote that former Hatay Metropolitan Mayor Lütfü Savaş, who is listed as a witness in the case, also gave an inaccurate statement about him. He said Savaş had requested a meeting before the March 31 local elections and later told the prosecutor’s office that “Saymaz said Kılıçdaroğlu would withdraw at İmamoğlu’s direction.”
However, Saymaz said he had received this information from journalist Altan Sancar, called Kılıçdaroğlu’s adviser Bülent Kuşoğlu to verify it, and after receiving the answer “He has withdrawn, he is withdrawing,” shared the information both live on Sözcü TV and on social media. Saymaz emphasized that if the TV recordings were examined, it would be understood that these claims were unfounded.
In his article, Saymaz noted that the statements of witnesses such as Tolgahan Erdoğan and Hasan Hüseyin Özyurt also contain serious doubts, saying these people made allegations without presenting concrete evidence, yet their statements nonetheless shaped the case file.
According to Saymaz, one of the most striking allegations is Özyurt’s claim that “apartments, phones and shopping cards were distributed through KİPTAŞ.” Saymaz wrote that these claims were not supported by any concrete documents but were still taken seriously.
İsmail Saymaz stated that only the statements of two witnesses in the indictment were relatively more concrete. He noted that although the testimonies from Erzurum and Bitlis appeared more serious than the other witness statements, they had not been sufficiently verified in their current form.