CHP Grand Convention Case Moves Toward Merger With Istanbul Municipality Trial, Raising Political Stakes

A court in Ankara has signaled it may merge the case concerning alleged irregularities at the CHP’s 38th Ordinary Congress with the ongoing Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality (IBB) trial. Critics describe the proceedings as politically motivated, aimed at implicating senior CHP figures and potentially paving the way for a Constitutional Court case seeking to close the party.

A Case Expanding Beyond the Disputed Grand Convention

The trial, opened on charges of “violating the Election Law” in relation to the CHP’s 38th Grand Convention, continued at Ankara’s 26th Criminal Court of First Instance.

Among the 12 defendants are Istanbul Mayor and former presidential candidate Ekrem İmamoğlu, Beşiktaş Mayor Rıza Akpolat, and CHP Istanbul Provincial Chair Özgür Çelik.

During the latest hearing, witnesses repeated allegations that delegates were offered money or various benefits in exchange for votes. However, much of the testimony was based on hearsay, with witnesses using phrases such as “I heard,” “it was said,” or “I know.”

Defense lawyers objected strongly, arguing that the statements lacked direct evidence.

Court Signals Possible Merger With IBB Case

In a key procedural move, the court ruled that it would write to Istanbul’s 40th High Criminal Court to explore merging the file with the ongoing Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality case.

If the Istanbul court responds positively, the merger could be decided without a separate hearing.

The next hearing was postponed to April 1.

The potential consolidation of the two cases has heightened concerns among opposition figures that the proceedings are part of a broader political strategy targeting the CHP leadership.

Witness Allegations: Payments, Promises, and Pressure

Several witnesses made sweeping allegations in court:

• A former İzmir delegate claimed he “heard” that money was distributed but acknowledged he had no direct knowledge.

• A delegate from Erzurum alleged that local party officials distributed cash and demanded proof of voting through WhatsApp messages.

• A Bursa delegate said she received a phone call offering unspecified sums of money to persuade other delegates but insisted she rejected the offer.

• Another witness claimed he was offered €500,000 not to testify in the case.

Defense attorneys emphasized that most allegations relied on indirect claims rather than documented evidence.

Political Trial Allegations

CHP officials and legal observers argue that the case carries broader political implications.

The merging of the congress case with the IBB trial is seen by critics as an attempt to build a larger narrative against leading CHP figures, including İmamoğlu — widely viewed as a potential challenger to the ruling party.

Some opposition voices warn that the accumulation of such cases could eventually be used to file an application with the Constitutional Court of Turkey seeking the closure of the CHP, a move that would mark a dramatic escalation in Turkey’s political tensions.

Party representatives describe the proceedings as a politically driven effort to discredit opposition leadership ahead of future elections.

Broader Context

Turkey has a long history of party closure cases, often adjudicated by the Constitutional Court. While no such application has been formally filed in this instance, analysts note that legal pressure on opposition parties has intensified in recent years.

The outcome of the April hearing — and whether the files are formally merged — may determine whether the case remains limited to alleged procedural violations or evolves into a broader confrontation between the government and the main opposition party.