Prof. Sözüer's 10-point commentary on the party congress lawsuit! 'An attempt at de facto closure'

The debates that began following the 38th Ordinary Congress of the CHP, held on November 4–5, 2023, have moved to a new stage with a lawsuit filed by dissident delegates demanding an extraordinary congress.

The third hearing of the lawsuit filed to cancel the 38th Ordinary Congress, where the CHP General Chairmanship passed from Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu to Özgür Özel, was held today at the Ankara 42nd Civil Court of First Instance at the Dışkapı Courthouse. A decision to postpone the congress lawsuit was issued.

Prof. Dr. Adem Sözüer, in a 10-point statement he shared on social media regarding the events cited as the cause for the congress lawsuit, stated: "Even if it were assumed to be true that benefits were provided to delegates, this does not constitute fraud, nor does it constitute the crime of bribery under the Turkish Penal Code (TCK). Even if the allegations of benefits and pressure, etc., were true, a trustee cannot be appointed to the party."

Adem Sözüer's social media post is as follows:

"Ten justifications regarding the attempt at 'de facto closure' against the main opposition party:

1) Criminal and civil lawsuits related to the CHP Congress cannot be evaluated within the context of positive law.

2) Environments where Constitutional Court/ECHR decisions are not implemented, opposition politicians and journalists are arrested, and trustees are appointed to municipalities are stripped of law; legal norms are suspended.

3) In countries in such environments, the Constitution and laws appear to be in force, but by taking advantage of the lack of effective separation of powers and systematically using authorities for purposes other than those intended, 'show trials' (Schauprozess) are initiated. Through this method, political purges, many examples of which have been seen in history, are carried out.

4) In environments stripped of law, political parties in opposition are dragged into internal conflict, debate, and uncertainty through the abuse of public authority and 'organized schemes.' Thus, parties that provide effective opposition are transformed into a 'Turkish-style' loyal opposition party."

5) This is the closure of a party without a Constitutional Court decision, that is, not legally but de facto. For example, the HDP appears to be an open party on paper, but its effectiveness has been effectively terminated through known 'organized schemes,' and the party has been de facto closed. This is also the reason for the establishment of the DEM.

6) De facto closure is even more negative than the party closures and trustee appointments made during coup periods. Because a coup is already a de facto regime, not a legal one.

7) Elections at the congresses of political parties take place under the management and supervision of election boards and judges. Objections made to district and provincial election boards and the Supreme Election Council are final.

Results that do not go before the boards because no objection was filed are also final. A civil court of first instance cannot ignore these final decisions or results and change the party administration.

8) Even if it were assumed to be true that benefits were provided to delegates, this does not constitute fraud, nor does it constitute the crime of bribery under the TCK. Even if the allegations of benefits and pressure, etc., were true, a trustee cannot be appointed to the party.

Decisions such as ignoring the congress election or appointing a trustee cannot be made on June 30.

10) Since a criminal case, however forced, has been opened on the subject, it is likely that a decision to stay proceedings will be made to await the outcome of that case.

There are many other legal arguments. However, these are not effective in environments stripped of law. On June 30, we will see to what extent the stripping of law can go.

10) Neutralizing parties through extra-legal methods is essentially a crime. The victims of these crimes are not only the members of that party but the entire society. The perpetrator is those who create the environment stripped of law. Since the attempt at de facto closure is a 'de facto' use of force, its solution is 'legal' activism."