Kilicdaroglu did not back legal objection to critical election irregularity in 2017

Kilicdaroglu did not back legal objection to critical election irregularity in 2017
A+ A-
Former CHP deputy Atilla Kart has disclosed that the international phase of a legal challenge against election authority's decision to consider unsealed votes valid in a constitution referendum did not receive CHP's backing.

A prominent figure of the main opposition in Turkey disclosed in a recent video interview that he was abandoned by the party leadership in his legal challenge against the election authority who had decided to consider a large number of unsealed votes valid in a referendum vote in 2017.

Although the envelopes and ballot papers should be sealed in order to be considered valid, according to the election rules in Turkey, the Supreme Election Board (YSK) decided otherwise on 16 April 2017 in a critical move that might have changed the result of the referendum on constitutional amendments.

Atilla Kart, former deputy for the Republican People's Party (CHP) and a prominent party figure who are among the potential candidates for the future leadership of CHP, told journalist Nevsin Mengu that he immediately started working on a legal challenge after 16 April, and that his legal approach and determined stance persuaded senior CHP officials to give him green light on 20 April for launching a case on behalf of the party.

After he filed the case, domestic remedies were quickly exhausted in 45 days and Kart went on to put together documents to be filed with the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

On June 15, he presented the file, containing a 45-page petition and 250 pages of attachments, to CHP leader Kemal Kilicdaroglu for a final green light to move on.

"I told him that I wanted permission to file the case in Strasbourg," he said.

"He went over the documents, expressed his gratitude for my work and wished me good luck."

A day later he was called by former CHP deputy chair Tekin Bingol, who informed Kart that Kilicdaroglu wanted him to file the case individually, not on behalf of the party.

He eventually filed the case with the ECHR, though on his own behalf.

Kart added after his recount:

"The chairman is a passive bureaucrat. He is not proactive, and neither does he take on responsibility. He always lags behind."