President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has filed a TL 1 million ($30,000) compensation lawsuit against Republican People’s Party (CHP) Chair Özgür Özel over remarks made during a rally and a subsequent press statement, accusing the opposition leader of making baseless and insulting allegations.
The lawsuit, announced Thursday by Erdoğan’s lawyer Hüseyin Aydın, concerns comments Özel made on Aug. 13 during a rally in Istanbul’s Bayrampaşa district and later outside Marmara Prison following a visit to suspended Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality Mayor Ekrem Imamoğlu and other detainees.
“Due to the inappropriate expressions and unfounded accusations targeting our president, a total of TL 1 million in nonpecuniary damages has been filed at the Ankara Civil Court of First Instance. In addition, a criminal complaint has been lodged with the Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office for the crime of insulting the president,” Aydın said in a statement.
The case comes shortly after the Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office launched a separate investigation into Özel over the same remarks. Speaking to reporters after his prison visit, Özel rejected rumors that Aydın Metropolitan Municipality Mayor Özlem Çerçioğlu was considering joining the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party). Instead, he accused political consultant Aziz Ihsan Aktaş of working with several municipalities and claimed CHP mayors were under pressure to defect to the AK Party or face prosecution.
Meanwhile, Çerçioğlu resigned from the CHP, citing disagreements with the party administration on Thursday following Özel's remarks, and joined the AK Party. "Despite repeatedly seeking solutions to the problems we face within the CHP, we have unfortunately been unable to reach a resolution. I am no longer on the same path as the CHP," she said in a post on X.
Later in the day, she joined the AK Party in a ceremony attended by Erdoğan along with three of her district mayors, who had also quit the CHP.
Özel's comments quickly drew strong reactions from senior government figures, who accused the opposition leader of crossing the line of political discourse.
AK Party spokesperson Ömer Çelik condemned the statements as “disrespectful” toward the president, calling them “political aggression and lies.” “What Özel is doing is not politics – he has become a source of political poison,” Çelik said on social media, vowing to respond “with all our political strength.”
AK Party Deputy Chair Efkan Ala similarly criticized the remarks as “excessive, inappropriate and ugly,” while Presidential Communications Director Burhanettin Duran said politics should be conducted “with decorum and style.” Duran accused Özel of “airing internal political contradictions” in a manner “unacceptable in terms of political courtesy and ethics.”
Justice Minister Yılmaz Tunç also weighed in, describing Özel’s comments as “an overt attack on the national will” that had “gone beyond a matter of style” into a violation of political norms. “Our nation will never allow politics based on slander and defamation, just as it has not until now,” he said.
Under Turkish law, insulting the president is a criminal offense punishable by prison if convicted. While critics, including the CHP, argue that the statute limits freedom of expression, the government maintains it is necessary to protect the dignity of the presidency as an institution.
Erdoğan has previously brought defamation and insult cases against political figures and public personalities he accused of making false or derogatory statements. The president’s legal team has argued that such actions are vital to upholding the standards of political debate and preventing the spread of misinformation.
The CHP, Türkiye’s main opposition party, has long criticized the law on insulting the president, claiming it is often used to stifle dissent. However, government officials insist that criticism and insult are not the same, stressing that political debate must remain within the bounds of respect and factual accuracy.
The lawsuit marks a new flashpoint in already tense relations between the ruling party and the opposition, with political rhetoric intensifying on both sides. As the legal process unfolds, it is likely to further fuel debate over the limits of political speech and the balance between free expression and protecting public officeholders from defamation.
