The SEC’s contradictions: Judge in Melikgazi knows his job

İklim Öngel
When Kayseri Melikgazi Sub-Province Election Council rejected the annulment application made by the CHP on the grounds that admitting unstamped voting slips and envelopes was unlawful, Sub-Province Election Council Chair, Vedat Azgit wrote a dissenting opinion that stands up as a reply to the Supreme Election Council (SEC).
The CHP’s Melikgazi Sub-Province Chair’s Office objected to the Sub-Province Election Council following the referendum. A whole host of breaches of the law were listed in the CHP’s objection petition, with it noted that it was not requesting anything like a recount since the polling papers consisting of a pile of bags in unsealed form were no longer capable of serving as evidence. It was stated in the objection petition, in which attention was drawn to the resolutions passed by the SEC after the count had started and the oral remarks made by SEC Chair Sadi Güven following the referendum, that the referendum was in full breach of procedure, statute and the law and should be annulled.
In the conclusions section of the assessment made by the Sub-Province Election Council, all of the applications were denied.
Along with the CHP member, the Sub-Province Election Council Chair Vedat Azgit also submitted a dissenting opinion to the decision taken by majority vote. Vedat Azgit, in the dissenting opinion he drafted, pointed at that on the referendum day the SEC’s news that unstamped voting slips and envelopes would be counted came from the SEC by mobile phone at 17.08. Azgit, pointing out that according to statute resolutions passed by the SEC of its own motion or on objection were final, stressed that according to statute unstamped voting slips had been decreed to be invalid, and said, ‘With there being a different provision in the statute on the same matter, what must initially be resolved is whether the statutory article or the SEC resolution is to be applied. Were it to be concluded that SEC resolutions were to be applied with priority over the statutory article, the conclusion to be reached would be that all articles of the Election Law could be amended through SEC resolutions. This is in violation of the basic principles of law. Hence, decision must be made as a matter of priority in accordance with the provisions in the Election Law.’
The circular is still in force
Azgit stated that another issue that had to be addressed was, if the SEC has more than one resolution on the same matter, which resolution will be applied with priority. Azgit, stating that in the text that the SEC published for the referendum and sent to polling committee chairs having made it into a booklet form, envelopes and voting slips that do not bear the polling committee stamp were decreed to be invalid, noted that the same point was also touched on in the training film prepared by the SEC and at training seminars. He pointed out that in the message sent by the SEC at 16.21 it was stated that if the polling committee’s stamp had been applied on the front, this voting slip would be valid. Azgit said, ‘That is, it was accepted that the polling committee’s stamp had to be present; indeed, it was stressed that the purpose of this regulation was to prevent fraud.’ Azgit, saying that both of the resolutions that the SEC sent as messages were Council resolutions, but the resolution having the form of a circular had to be applied with priority, noted that the cancellation of a circular could only be done by means of another circular and so the circular has not been cancelled and remains in force.