Inside the Trial of Istanbul Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu: A Day-by-Day Recap

They were detained and later arrested on 19 March 2025.

Before ever appearing in court, they were effectively tried in the headlines of dozens of newspapers and on television screens, where verdicts were delivered without due process.

They were declared guilty without being given a single opportunity to speak, and details of their private lives were laid bare. A similar atmosphere prevailed not only in the media, but also from the floor of parliament.

Both President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) leader Devlet Bahçeli repeatedly endorsed the yet-to-be-tested corruption allegations, launching months of harsh criticism in their speeches, despite the trial not having begun.

The primary target of the sweeping investigation — in which hundreds were questioned and detained — was Istanbul Metropolitan Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu.

İmamoğlu, who had defeated the ruling AK Party in every election he had contested, was sidelined by his arrest during the process of his presidential candidacy.

Over the course of the proceedings, he was removed from office as mayor. The broadcast of his image and voice on public transport was banned; even the display of his photographs was reportedly prohibited. His social media account was also blocked several times.

A total of 402 people, including 107 under arrest, were standing trial in the operations that began on 19 March, alongside İmamoğlu. According to the indictment, which runs to nearly 4,000 pages, he is accused of “establishing a criminal organisation for financial gain”.

Facing a possible sentence of 2,352 years, İmamoğlu had been waiting in a 12-square-metre cell for his day in court — as had the other 401 defendants — for nearly a year. That moment finally came on 9 March.

It was now time for the defence to be heard.

The hearing began under tight security measures

But events did not unfold as expected.

An effective state of emergency was imposed in the area surrounding the prison complex in Silivri, where the trial was to be held.

Within a one-kilometre radius of the prison’s perimeter fences, public gatherings and demonstrations, press statements and interviews, filming with cameras or mobile phones, the display of banners or placards, the setting up of stands, chanting slogans and even pitching tents were all banned.

Roads were closed. Members of the public were not allowed to exercise their legal right to observe the proceedings. In fact, they were not even permitted to approach the prison, let alone attend the hearing.

Initially, only 25 journalists were allowed into the courtroom. A maximum of three lawyers per defendant were permitted to present a defence, and priority for attendance was given to first-degree relatives. However, in the days that followed, restrictions on the press were eased. Ultimately, all media representatives were allowed into the courtroom, with additional rooms equipped with screens so journalists could follow the proceedings with both audio and video.

Under these unprecedented security measures and restrictions, the defendants took their places in the courtroom.

All that remained was the arrival of the panel of judges from Istanbul’s 40th High Criminal Court, who would preside over the trial.

Debate over judges’ experience

The panel of judges — consisting of a presiding judge, two members and a prosecutor — was alleged to have been specially appointed. The claim was voiced by the leader of the main opposition CHP, Özgür Özel, who attended the hearing.

“In a courthouse with nearly 50 high criminal courts, it had long been said the case would be assigned either to Court No. 1 or No. 40. It is widely claimed that the judge of the 40th court has close ties to the justice minister. They were not confident about the two members, so they brought in two new ones from outside. A tailor-made judicial panel was formed.” he said.

In courts dealing with organised and terrorism-related offences, seniority — and therefore experience — is considered crucial. A minimum of 10 years’ professional experience is required to preside over a high criminal court, and cases of significant public interest are typically overseen by more experienced judges.

However, the panel assigned to the 40th High Criminal Court also faced criticism over a perceived lack of experience.

The presiding judge had previously worked as a lawyer, with three years of that period counted towards the required experience. The two member judges had less than two years’ professional seniority each.

“There are three judges, with a combined experience of just 11 years,” Özel said. “The person expected to navigate a 4,000-page indictment and a case seeking a 2,400-year sentence can barely find the courtroom door out of nervousness.”

Tensions in court

The trial — which the CHP had called to be broadcast live but the ruling AK Party opposed — had now begun.

At the outset, Ekrem İmamoğlu sought to address the court. His lawyer conveyed that he wished to greet those in the courtroom, but the presiding judge refused.

İmamoğlu insisted on speaking, leading to a tense standoff. While the judge sought to assert authority over the courtroom, İmamoğlu appeared intent on signalling both his resistance and his claim that the case was politically motivated.

Rising from his seat and approaching the defendant’s stand, İmamoğlu repeated his request to speak. The judge responded: “No, I will not give you the floor. You cannot proceed like this.”

The judge’s use of the informal “you” in addressing İmamoğlu drew strong reactions in the courtroom, with lawyers urging: “Show respect. You should address him formally.”

When İmamoğlu’s microphone was switched off, tensions escalated further. The judge warned he could be removed from the courtroom.

As protests from lawyers and observers intensified, the judge requested that gendarmes remove the audience and left the courtroom.

“You came here to conduct a trial — you cannot leave like this,” İmamoğlu shouted after the panel.

Despite instructions, members of the audience refused to leave. CHP leader Özgür Özel remained inside alongside them and sharply criticised the court’s conduct.

Clashes continue into second day

Following discussions between court officials and CHP representatives, it was agreed that the hearing would continue with the audience present.

However, the court rejected defence requests to recuse the judges, ruling that the motion was intended to delay proceedings. The hearing was then adjourned until 10 March without granting İmamoğlu the floor.

As the panel departed, further exchanges followed.

“You are afraid even to grant the right to speak,” İmamoğlu said. “If you do not allow the person accused of leading a criminal organisation to speak, then you are not here to conduct a trial.”

On the second day, security measures were tightened further. Gendarmes were positioned to prevent İmamoğlu from approaching the stand.

“Are you going to tape my mouth shut? Who are you trying to block?” he said. “This is a disgrace for the Turkish judiciary.”

A heated exchange followed between İmamoğlu and the presiding judge:

Judge: “This decision was taken because of your conduct yesterday. Everything in this courtroom is under my authority.”

İmamoğlu: “Whose instructions are you following?”

Judge: “We take instructions from no one.”

İmamoğlu: “Who are you afraid of? Do not be afraid of me — I am here to protect you.”

The proceedings eventually resumed after İmamoğlu agreed not to approach the stand without permission.

İmamoğlu finally speaks

After identity checks and the reading of the indictment summary, İmamoğlu was finally given the floor.

Although he was scheduled to be among the last defendants to testify — which could have meant waiting weeks — he secured the opportunity to speak after insisting.

In a 20-minute statement, he reiterated his claim that the case was politically motivated.

“This is a matter of trust,” he said. “Saying ‘I will not listen to Ekrem İmamoğlu’ creates a problem. The essence of this case is political.”

He also criticised the order of defence statements and his prolonged detention in a 12-square-metre cell.

Following his remarks, tensions in the courtroom visibly eased.

Government response

Justice Minister Akın Gürlek later addressed the controversy, defending both the court and its procedures.

“Courtrooms are not arenas for politicas,” he said. “Only judicial proceedings take place there. The status or office of individuals is irrelevant.”

He also defended the use of the term “defendant” in addressing İmamoğlu, saying it was standard legal practice.

Testimonies and further tensions

The first full defence was delivered by former CHP MP Aykut Erdoğdu, who said his rights had been restricted and that he had been held in solitary confinement for 10 months with limited access to case files.

“I did not carry money. If you have evidence, present it,” he said, rejecting the charges.

On the third day, tensions resurfaced when gendarmes attempted to prevent a defendant from waving to relatives in the courtroom, prompting reaction from lawyers and other defendants.

İmamoğlu also criticised the state broadcaster TRT, accusing it of spreading disinformation.

‘I don’t know’ responses draw reaction

Later in the week, the questioning of a cooperating witness drew attention, particularly repeated responses of “I don’t know” when asked about key allegations.

The exchanges fuelled claims by the defence that testimony had been obtained under pressure.

Press restrictions

Journalists also clashed with the court after being moved back to the rear of the courtroom following a brief period closer to proceedings.

The judge cited “misuse” of the arrangement, without elaborating. According to judicial sources cited by Fayn, the move followed discomfort over İmamoğlu’s brief remarks to reporters in the courtroom.

The hearing was eventually adjourned until the following Monday amid continued disputes.

What comes next

The trial is set to continue with defence statements, with hearings scheduled from Monday to Thursday.

An interim ruling is expected after all detained defendants have been heard — currently planned for the end of April.

However, lawyers argue that timeline is too long and are calling for weekly reviews of detention conditions following each testimony.

Second week

The second week of the İBB trial — in which Ekrem İmamoğlu and 106 people are being tried in detention — concluded with disputes over speaking rights, intervention by gendarmes, and heated exchanges.

The court, which had already ended the first week early following a seating dispute with journalists, opened the second week in a similar atmosphere of contention.

Ahead of the hearing on Monday, 16 March, tensions were already high both inside and around the courtroom.

Eight-minute hearing

Following the seating dispute with the press, additional security measures were introduced on the court’s instructions. All vehicles were stopped 500 metres before the prison entrance, and entry by car was blocked. Only members of the press holding Turquoise Press Cards were allowed into the building.

With the opening of the hearing, tensions immediately emerged.

This time, the focus of the dispute was a member of parliament.

The presiding judge issued a warning: “Some MPs are sitting in the lawyers’ section. Despite warnings, they are not leaving. Please move to the public gallery.”

The MP in question was CHP’s Turan Taşkın Özer, who is also a practising lawyer.

He objected, saying: “Which law states that I am forbidden from sitting here?”

The presiding judge repeated his request, stating that since the MP was not acting as legal counsel for any defendant, he should observe the hearing from the public section.

When Özer did not stand up, the judge reacted:

“Every morning we start with the same problem. We have detained defendants. We are trying to take defence statements. Every morning begins with a crisis. If this continues, I will adjourn the hearing.”

Eight minutes after it began, the court was adjourned.

After a one-hour break, the judges did not return to the courtroom.

The court clerk entered the room and said: “Dear members of parliament, the hearing is over. It has been adjourned until tomorrow.”

İbrahim Kaboğlu, President of the Istanbul Bar Association, who is closely following the case, told TELE2 that attempts had been made to find a compromise:

“We tried to find a middle ground between the parties. If we had been able to persuade Turan Taşkın Özer today and then reach an understanding after discussions with the bench, the hearing could have proceeded.”

New restrictions and backdoor diplomacy

The court, which adjourned the hearing, sent a written instruction to the Bakırköy Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office — responsible for the prison — ordering that only defendants and lawyers with formal authorisation be allowed into the courtroom.

It also requested the enforcement of a previously introduced but later relaxed rule limiting attendance to five foreign and 20 domestic members of the press.

The letter sparked debate, with some claiming that “CHP politicians were banned from attending the hearing.”

However, according to information obtained by Fayn from judicial sources, backchannel diplomacy was carried out.

Discussions were held both at the Speaker’s Office of Parliament and within the courthouse in an effort to find a compromise.

As a result, 10 CHP MPs and three DEM Party MPs were allowed to observe the trial.

Following this compromise, the second day of the second week proceeded in a calmer atmosphere.

Compared with the first week, the testimonies of detained defendants began to be heard more smoothly and without interruption.

A calm second day and notable testimonies from four defendants

On Tuesday, four detained defendants gave testimony.

Defendant Ümit Polat, who had given a statement in the context of seeking to become a cooperating witness, requested to make a correction during the hearing.

Polat, who serves as procurement manager at Ağaç A.Ş., had previously made headlines with claims that allegations of contractors being asked for under-the-table payments in exchange for work were relayed to Istanbul Governor Davut Gül through a relative.

Following these claims, Governor Gül wrote on his X account: “I have no close or distant relatives working at İBB or any of its subsidiaries.”

Polat’s remarks in court appeared to contradict these earlier claims.

“In my defence statement during the hearing, at one point my perception was disrupted. The pressure from behind here overwhelmed me. Because my perception was affected, I may have explained some parts incompletely, and I would like to clarify them. The Governor issued a denial. I did not meet the Governor himself. I spoke with a friend of the Governor’s relative,” Polat said.

Following Polat, the court heard the defences of four other detained defendants on Tuesday.

The defendants argued that the cooperating witness statements against them were based on “hearsay” and not supported by any concrete or definitive evidence.

Businessman defendant Evren Şirolu said he had never participated in any public tender at Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality.

“This is how we would conduct business: the procurement unit of Ağaç A.Ş. would email us a form listing the quantities and prices of products they needed. We would reply to that email with our available quantities and prices. If the price was suitable, they would request the items and the sale would be completed. I never entered any tender. All my sales were conducted in this way. There was no tender process. The indictment claims I won 44 to 50 tenders.”

When asked about allegations that he paid bribes to Ali Sukas, general manager of Ağaç A.Ş., to collect municipal receivables, Şirolu rejected the claims.

“There is no information about where or when I allegedly paid this money. Mr. President, I have already received all my payments. Why would I go and meet Ali Sukas?”

Third day begins with İmamoğlu taking the floor

Ekrem İmamoğlu, who had remained silent during the first two days of the hearing, requested to speak as soon as proceedings began on Wednesday.

As the bench was taking its place, İmamoğlu approached the defendant’s stand and said: “Your Honour, I would like to say just three words, if you are available…”

The judge immediately granted him permission to speak.

İmamoğlu said there had been several issues inside the courtroom, adding:

“Some undesirable things happened, or people made requests due to difficulties they were experiencing. There is a problem here. Only one relative per defendant is allowed inside. These people already struggle to meet their families; when they see them here, they feel happy and regain hope. I do not think this practice is correct.”

He also criticised the restriction limiting defendants to three lawyers, and addressed the placement of the press at the very back of the courtroom.

“This is now a case followed not only in Turkey but across the world. The press being kept at the very back undermines the court’s credibility. Allowing the press to follow this case is also important for the visibility and transparency of the panel.”

Calling for release pending trial, İmamoğlu urged the judges to consider alternatives:

“Sometimes you can make a decision that releases people from here, sends them home, grants them the right to be tried without detention — and history changes. I leave this in your hands. I wanted to share my feelings. Thank you for giving me the floor.”

Following his remarks, the court moved on to witness statements.

The testimony of Murat Or, the private secretary at Ağaç A.Ş. and a detained defendant, proved particularly striking.

He said parts of his statements included in the indictment did not reflect what he had actually said.

“Your Honour, I have read my statements in the indictment, but there are points there that I did not say or that were misinterpreted. I want to correct them. It is written in the indictment that I said ‘I saw it with my own eyes.’ I did not see Ali Sukas receiving money with my own eyes. I told the prosecutor that ‘it could be the case’, I was referring to a possibility. But the record was written as if I was certain, stating ‘I believe this is the case.’

On the issue of cards: when asked about the cards, I said I ‘thought they were there’, meaning I was only making an assumption. But in my statement it was recorded as if I had said they were definitively present.”

Following this, the judge asked Or whether he had read his statement during the prosecution phase.

Judge–witness exchange continues; hearing adjourned for lunch

Judge: You mentioned in your defence your statement dated 29.09.2025 and said there were material errors. Did you not read your statement?

Murat Or: I was experiencing such a situation for the first time at that moment.

Judge: You are not an uneducated person. Did you not look at your statement?

Murat Or: I gave a long statement. There are parts where I used phrases like “I think.”

Judge: In your statement, you clearly say you saw the contents of the bag. Yet here you are now saying something different.

Murat Or: When I was taken into custody, I gave testimony for a full day. A year had passed; I could not recall every detail at that moment.

Following this exchange, the court adjourned for lunch.

Presiding judge responds to İmamoğlu

Meanwhile, the presiding judge responded to requests raised by İmamoğlu during the hearing:

“We are not applying any external restrictions. We have instructed the gendarmerie that if there is space in the courtroom, entry will be allowed. Regarding the media, colleagues are continuously requesting meetings. We have also provided desks for them to work. We will provide necessary support regarding sound. Foreign representatives are also being assessed daily. If a request comes in, we will consider it.”

İmamoğlu thanked the judge in response.

He then embraced some of the female defendants before leaving the courtroom under gendarmerie escort.

Afternoon session: Ali Sukas takes the stand

After the break, Ağaç A.Ş. General Manager Ali Sukas delivered his defence.

He said the accusations against him were based on statements from a secret witness codenamed “Gürgen” and from defendant Ümit Polat, who had given testimony in order to benefit from effective remorse provisions.

“When I look at the statements of secret witness Gürgen, it would be impossible for any single manager at Ağaç A.Ş. to have such comprehensive knowledge. Some company names and individuals are correct, but the content is wrong. Whoever this secret witness Gürgen is, they would have had to monitor 50 employees and companies 24 hours a day. It is not possible that Gürgen is a single person. When examined closely, it is clear that some of these claims align with allegations made against me, linking me to Ertan Yıldız and Fatih Keleş, and from there to Ekrem İmamoğlu. They are simply naming whoever is placed in front of them.”

Sukas also denied giving instructions to Ümit Polat to receive payments from any individuals.

As the working day came to an end, the presiding judge cut Sukas’s defence short and adjourned the hearing.

The trial was suspended for the holiday period and is scheduled to resume on Monday, 23 March, with Sukas continuing his testimony.

Lawyers requested that a review of the defendants’ detention be carried out before the holiday, but the request was rejected.

Third week

The third week of the trial in which Ekrem İmamoğlu and 106 others are being tried in detention has now concluded.

The disputes over speaking rights, interventions by gendarmes, and disagreements between the court and members of the press and parliament over seating arrangements — which had dominated the first two weeks — have, to some extent, eased.

Hearings in the third week were notably calmer compared with the earlier stages of the trial.

Attendance from both observers and the press was lower in the hearings where two prominent district mayors — from Şişli and Esenyurt — presented their defences.

These proceedings, which are seen as potentially decisive in determining whether “undesirable candidates” could be eliminated through judicial means going forward, took place largely in the shadow of the war in Iran.

In a case from which much of the traditional press has largely stayed away, here is a summary of what took place this week.

Monday, 23 March

The hearing began on Monday morning in a relatively calm courtroom atmosphere.

The defence of Ağaç A.Ş. General Manager Ali Sukas, whose testimony had been left unfinished the previous week, resumed first along with his lawyers.

The indictment alleged that Sukas’s wife, Berna Sukas, during her candidacy process for the CHP, had provided campaign vehicles sourced from contractors doing business with the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality.

In his defence, Sukas did not deny the allegation in full but said that vehicles were not provided to his wife in exchange for municipal receivables:

“Because the candidacy was announced late, we had not made any prior preparations. I did not request buses from Ahmet Sari (a businessman). For campaigning, we needed small commercial vehicles. After the candidacy was announced, we could not find vehicles on the market, so I asked Ahmet Sari for help. A week later, either he or I called, and he said, ‘We found 8–10 vehicles.’ A few days later I asked him for an account number. He told me, ‘We will sort it out, you are under pressure right now.’ I repeated my request four or five times. After the election, when we delivered the vehicles, I again asked for an account number. He said, ‘We’ve taken care of it, let’s just offer a little support to our sister; she wasn’t elected anyway, you were under a lot of strain.’ I did not want to accept this. If Ahmet Sari comes here and looks me in the eye and says, ‘I gave these because I could not collect my receivables from Ağaç A.Ş.,’ then my neck is thinner than a thread — I am ready to serve that sentence. I am at peace with my conscience.”

Following Sukas’s defence, Ekrem İmamoğlu also requested to ask questions.

His request was accepted, and İmamoğlu first directed criticism at the prosecution:

“The charts presented by the prosecution (regarding subsidiary budgets) are completely worthless. Even with a middle school IQ, a better one could be prepared. There is not a single document. The document shown on screen belongs to the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality and its subsidiary. They claimed it was prepared via MASAK. This is a grave issue.”

İmamoğlu also stressed that the prosecution had not examined records from before 2019 — the AK Party period:

“This is a grave matter. I condemn the prosecution. There is also a point that concerns you, Your Honour. The prosecution has stated that the entire previous picture is false. That is also entirely incorrect. I do not know whether you should file a criminal complaint, but this is the situation.”

After this statement, he proceeded to ask Sukas a series of questions.

İmamoğlu: “Was there ever any pressure on you regarding staff, such as ‘İmamoğlu wants this’? Any imposition?”

Sukas: “Absolutely not. I tried to continue using existing human resources as much as possible.”

İmamoğlu: “Did we ever meet secretly, informally, or in any hidden arrangement?”

Sukas: “Absolutely not. There was never any secret, private or informal meeting that I witnessed. If such an organisation existed, I would have sensed it from my experience. I have not even heard rumours of it.”

İmamoğlu: “Did I ever pressure you to work with a specific company?”

Sukas: “Absolutely not.”

Sukas’s lawyer, Beyza Nur Acar, also made striking claims in her submission.

She cited remarks she said were made by the judge during a periodic detention review:

“We made our defence. Afterwards, the judge announced the collective detention review decision and said: ‘I cannot understand how detention is being ordered in this file, but I am obliged to make this decision.’ I consider it my duty to state this for the sake of public awareness.”

No statement was issued either by the court or the Council of Judges and Prosecutors (HSK) regarding this claim.

Separately, defendant Ümit Polat, who had earlier given a statement as a cooperating witness but later claimed parts of it had been incorrectly recorded, submitted a petition to the court. Claiming psychological distress, Polat requested not to attend future hearings. The court has not yet responded to this request.

Tuesday, 24 March

Resul Emrah Şahan: “I am in detention not because I did what contractors wanted, but because I did not.”

On Tuesday, CHP Istanbul MP Turan Taşkın Özer, who arrived at the prison for the hearing, was not allowed into the building by gendarmes.

Özer, who is also a lawyer, had previously sat in the section reserved for defence lawyers during the second week of the trial, wearing his robe.

When the presiding judge warned that “some MPs are sitting in the lawyers’ section. Despite warnings, they are not leaving. Please move to the public gallery,” Özer had refused to comply, and the hearing was adjourned.

Gendarmes informed Özer, who was denied entry, that this was based on an oral instruction from the presiding judge.

The instruction was not limited to Özer alone. It later emerged that the presiding judge had also ordered that CHP MPs Ali Mahir Başarır, Mahmut Tanal, Özgür Karabat and Bahadır Erdem be denied entry to the courtroom.

Ekrem İmamoğlu criticised the decision.

Speaking during the hearing, İmamoğlu stressed that MPs should be allowed into the courtroom:

“There are five people here — one law professor, four MPs, one group deputy chair. It was said that the prosecution requested they not be admitted. You said this is a prosecution decision, but as far as I understand, the authority of this courtroom lies with you. As far as I am concerned, we are ready to do whatever we can to facilitate your work. Everyone should be allowed in and observe with respect. But please do not allow anyone to bring politics into this courtroom.”

The presiding judge said İmamoğlu’s request would be considered.

For the first time in the trial, a district mayor gave testimony.

The first to take the stand was Şişli Mayor Resul Emrah Şahan, who said:

“We are all being forced into a setup designed by a hostile structure. There is no evidence, no proof — we are being asked to disprove an indictment. There is an allegation, an indictment, and I am expected to refute it. I have read the indictment. It claims I was placed in Şişli by the ‘İmamoğlu Organisation’ because it is a high-rent district, and that I generated resources for this organisation while serving as mayor. Your Honour, all my technical staff were appointed based on merit. I did not know many of them before. More than half of the technical team came from AK Party municipalities or former ministries.”

Şahan said he had faced repeated investigations since taking office, and indirectly referred to Istanbul Governor Davut Gül without naming him directly:

“I started my term under intense investigative pressure, immediately. The Governor — I hope I am not mistaken — called me several times. He said, ‘What will happen in Şişli, there are skyscrapers everywhere, let there be one here too.’ He said, ‘There will be problems.’ We did not proceed. We stayed where we needed to stay. I am being tried because I did not align with the understanding represented by that skyscraper. What was expected of me was to ignore it. Honestly, to turn a blind eye. Today I am in detention not because I did what contractors wanted, but because I did not.”

The Istanbul Governor’s Office later responded to Şahan’s claims in writing. Governor Davut Gül confirmed that a meeting took place but denied the remarks attributed to him.

He said the meeting with Şahan was held in response to complaints that the municipality was attempting to block construction belonging to a Bulgarian foundation, and described it as “part of official duty.”

In his defence, Şahan also emphasised that he had not approved irregular requests from pro-government companies and businessmen.

He also commented on calls for the trial to be broadcast live:

“There was talk of live broadcasting. Honestly, it has turned into a women’s TV programme. ‘He said this, she said that…’ Everyone is telling stories, everyone behind them is getting bored. It has almost become a bride-and-mother-in-law show.”

Following this, Ekrem İmamoğlu took the floor and asked questions.

İmamoğlu: “Did I ever instruct you to award contracts or generate profit for any company or individual?”

Şahan: “No, Mr. Mayor. Even if you had, there is no money in our municipality.”

İmamoğlu: “During our time working together, did I ever make any unlawful, improper, or interest-driven request or proposal?”

Şahan: “No, I did not. Of course you did not, Mr. Mayor. We call right right and wrong wrong.”

Following these exchanges, the hearing concluded.

Wednesday, 25 March

On Wednesday, the defence turn belonged to Beylikdüzü Mayor Mehmet Murat Çalık.

Çalık, who has undergone cancer treatment twice before and has frequently received medical examinations while in prison, had his request for release rejected, with authorities finding no impediment to his continued detention.

Delivering a lengthy defence, Çalık stressed that he had never used public authority for personal gain:

“I have never issued an unlawful instruction. I have never received an unlawful instruction either. I am accused of seven acts in the indictment. However, during the prosecutor’s questioning, only two of these were put to me. Files that had previously been examined, found to contain no wrongdoing, and even closed are now appearing before us as a case today. The fact that two schools we built in Beylikdüzü for children with special needs through donations are being included in this case as alleged bribery deeply pains me.”

Thursday, 26 March

The following morning, the hearing continued with Murat Çalık’s defence.

Ekrem İmamoğlu, as he had done with other defendants, also posed questions to Çalık. In response, Çalık stated that he had not received any unlawful instructions from İmamoğlu.

After the questioning, İmamoğlu criticised Justice Minister Akın Gürlek over comments he had made in media appearances describing the İBB case as “the corruption case of the century”:

“Look, calling something ‘the corruption case of the century’ — a political figure, especially if he is at the head of justice, cannot say this. This is a difficult task. It is like giving grades under pressure in a school. That is why I insistently say: this is not ‘the corruption case of the century’, but a struggle against unlawful governance, and a struggle for democracy.”

These were the events in the courtroom during the third week.

Behind closed doors: withdrawn testimony

There were also developments behind closed doors that are now coming to light.

CHP leader Özgür Özel announced during a parliamentary group meeting that detained businessman Murat Kapki had filed a petition withdrawing testimony he had previously given on 2 March — before the trial had officially begun — as part of an attempt to benefit from “effective remorse” provisions.

Kapki, who had previously been in the news over allegations that AK Party lawyer Mücahit Birinci met him in prison and demanded money in exchange for release, stated in his petition that his testimony had been taken under pressure and in exchange for promises of release:

“The prosecutors told me: ‘You are at a very low level in this file, you are not even part of the organisation, just tell everything and you will get out.’ I gave my third statement in the hope that I would be released after testifying. There, the prosecutor asked me, ‘There are such claims about this issue, do you know about them?’ and I answered all of them by saying, ‘Yes, it may be, I had also heard it.’ I thought I would be released shortly afterwards, I trusted the prosecutors. Throughout all these statements, I acted in coordination with the investigating prosecutors because I was promised release, and above all to prevent the detention of my wife and family.”

Kapki also stated that before the operation he had transferred assets to İsmail Kaan, the son of AK Party figure Osman Kaan:

“İsmail Kaan told me he could get me out of this case. He said, ‘Transfer your assets to me, they won’t be able to touch me.’ He gave me confidence and took my assets. Although I explained everything in detail, these points were not included in my statement. Osman Kaan, İsmail’s father, said, ‘We spent much more to get İsmail out of the case,’ and they did not return my assets.”

Kapki’s claims, in which he says he worked more closely with the municipality during the AK Party period, have not yet been commented on by the individuals named or by the prosecutor’s office.

Fourth week: Release order for 18 defendants

The fourth week of the trial, in which Ekrem İmamoğlu and 107 others are being held in detention, has now been completed.

The first week of the case was marked by disputes over speaking rights, intervention by gendarmes, and political exchanges. The second week saw an eight-minute first hearing, new restrictions in the courtroom, and notable testimonies from four defendants. The third week was comparatively calmer. The fourth week, however, proved to be the most critical so far, as the court was expected to issue an interim decision on Thursday evening regarding the continued detention of the defendants.

On Monday morning, 30 March, all 106 detained defendants took their places in the courtroom for this decisive week. One notable absence was Ekrem İmamoğlu, the central figure in the case.

This was because İmamoğlu was simultaneously facing two separate trials.

Alongside the İBB case, he was also attending the “expert witness case” on the same day.

İmamoğlu had previously stated that the same expert witness was repeatedly appointed in investigations targeting both the CHP and the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality. Following these remarks, he was accused of targeting and influencing a judicial expert, in a case in which he faces up to four years in prison.

While the İBB trial was being held on the ground floor, the expert witness case was taking place two floors underground, in the basement courtroom.

That morning, İmamoğlu first attended the hearing in the basement courtroom.

Monday, 30 March

İmamoğlu: “Out of more than 8,000 court experts, the probability that the same name would be assigned in four separate case files does not fit within mathematical logic.”

Ekrem İmamoğlu, who appeared visibly angered, delivered his defence in the hearing.

He criticised the proceedings in strong terms:

“I am here for one of the many unlawful cases filed against me, the number and subjects of which I struggle even to list. In a manner of speaking, today there is an ‘Ekrem İmamoğlu shift’ taking place here. At every corner there is a setup, in every courtroom an ambush is being prepared. Since this trial began, you have also been subject to one of the judge changes that have taken place. So you have in fact come into contact with a substitute judge, and you are now effectively the third judge presiding here.”

İmamoğlu said the court-appointed expert had produced a report “based on lies and slander” against him:

“It is my most natural right to explain this. If I do not inform the public about these unlawfully constructed cases, what else should I do? We have identified these cases created through unlawful methods. When we look at who prepared these reports targeting me and Republican People’s Party municipalities, the same name always appears: Mr Satılmış. Yes, Mr Satılmış. I am being prosecuted for criticising such a situation in this absurd case. There are over 8,000 court experts in Istanbul. It is highly unusual that the same name appears in four separate case files; this does not fit any mathematical probability.”

He also criticised the broader judicial process against him:

“You can only do damage in proportion to your capacity. I am openly saying this, I am very angry, Your Honour. In this country, influencing judicial proceedings is now carried out through networks within the judiciary. And those within that network are promoted: they are transferred from Çağlayan to Ankara. First a judge, then Deputy Minister of Justice — a political position. Then, while serving as Chief Prosecutor in Istanbul, someone who prepared indictments against us is rewarded by becoming Minister of Justice…”

İmamoğlu also recounted a moment during his initial interrogation in the İBB investigation:

“‘Mr. Ekrem, my interrogation is over. We are standing, sorry for that. One day you will become President. You will sit on this side of the table, and I will sit on the other. Then you will judge us.’ That is exactly what he said. I replied: ‘Why do you assume you will be judged? Are you committing a crime? Is that how you see it? What kind of question is this, Mr Prosecutor? Is my ambition to become President about prosecuting you? Who are you, who are we? What side are we on? We are fighting for justice in this country.’ The prosecutor who said this to me has now been appointed Director General of Personnel (assigned to the ministry in Ankara by Akın Gürlek).”

He also directed sharp criticism at Akın Gürlek, who later became Minister of Justice after leading the İBB investigation:

“Let no one touch his father while he goes to prayer in the mosque — I was very saddened by that. But families are left in distress, mothers are made to cry, families suffer breakdowns… Is that acceptable? Those who play with the honour and dignity of families will one day face the just consequences before an independent judiciary. Anyone involved in undermining the constitutional order will see the outcome, as we have seen in the past and will see in the future — before the honourable judges of the Turkish judiciary.”

Following this forceful defence, the hearing was adjourned.

New case filed against İmamoğlu immediately after hearing

Even before İmamoğlu had appeared at the İBB trial on the upper floors of the courthouse, a new investigation was launched against him over remarks made during the hearing.

The Bakırköy Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office announced that it had opened an investigation into the offence of “insulting and threatening a public official due to their duty”.

At midday, İmamoğlu, who was able to attend the İBB hearing held in a courtroom two floors above, took the floor.

Referring to the fact that a new investigation had been launched immediately after he left the “expert witness case”, he questioned whether the hearings were being followed in real time.

Ekrem İmamoğlu said:

“Your Honour, I would like to ask a question. I am asking this for the sake of our security in this courtroom. I also need your information on this. Because something happened to me in another courtroom that I did not experience here: I spoke with my lawyer for 5–10 minutes after leaving the courtroom, and shortly afterwards I heard that a case had been opened against me for threats and insults. When I am speaking here, are we being broadcast live? Can such a case be opened? Does anyone have the right to do this before the court record is even issued?”

Judge: “Is that our concern?”

İmamoğlu: “Of course it is not your concern, I apologise. I just want to understand: is such a thing possible? Can the prosecution monitor this courtroom?”

Judge: “I have no information on that.”

İmamoğlu: “No information. Very clear. I genuinely want to know. Because just as I was leaving, my colleagues told me: ‘A case has been opened against you, just so you know.’ I could not understand it. Is TRT broadcasting this live and I don’t know about it? I really do not understand the system here.”

Following İmamoğlu’s remarks, the court continued hearing the defences of detained defendants.

During the hearing, lawyers for İSFALT Deputy General Manager Mehmet Karataş argued that the prosecution had confused evidence in the indictment.

They said that the phone number listed in the HTS records attributed to Karataş did not belong to their client.

Claiming that their client had been confused with another individual of the same name, the lawyer said:

“The HTS records and statements of another Mehmet Karataş have been sent to us. We are currently under arrest because of this.”

Tuesday, 31 March

Confusion over “Dear Mr President” note in courtroom

On Tuesday, the prosecutor delivered his opinion (mütalaa) on the detained defendants in the case.

He requested the release of several individuals, including Ekrem İmamoğlu’s Private Secretary Kadriye Kasapoğlu, Ağaç A.Ş. Procurement Chief Fatih Yağcı, businessmen Ali Üner and Evren Şirolu, private public bus operator Ebubekir Akın, CHP Istanbul MP Özgür Karabat’s driver Sırrı Küçük, and İSPER A.Ş. staff member Davut Bildik, citing time already spent in detention and the state of evidence.

At the same time, he asked for the continued detention of İmamoğlu and 100 other defendants.

During the hearing, a light-hearted exchange took place between the presiding judge and İmamoğlu over a handwritten note that began with the words “Dear Mr President”.

The note had been written by an unidentified lawyer for İmamoğlu but was accidentally dropped in the courtroom. A court official, seeing the opening words, assumed it was addressed to the judge and passed it on.

After reading the note, the judge addressed the courtroom:

The Presiding Judge said that a piece of paper had been brought to him, apparently left by one of the lawyers. Since it began with “Dear Mr President”, it had been assumed to be addressed to him. He said he had not wanted to read it in detail, but believed it referred to issues such as “presidential candidacy” and “Mrs Dilek”, and therefore concluded it related to Ekrem İmamoğlu. He added that such exchanges were not appropriate in a case of organised crime allegations and should be subject to oversight, warning the parties to be more careful.

Ekrem İmamoğlu responded:

“I can take it, I want it. You’ve already disclosed it. You might as well keep it…”

The judge replied that there was no criminal element in the note, but that its contents had been interpreted as referring to Dilek Hanım as a future presidential candidate, adding that such informal exchanges were not appropriate in the courtroom.

İmamoğlu then remarked that the judge would be the most trustworthy intermediary for such a note.

The note allegedly addressed to İmamoğlu contained the following:

“Dear Mr President,
A new investigation has been launched after the hearing today on charges of insulting and threatening a public official due to duty. Your statement in court, ‘May this country have a female President in the near future’, was interpreted on social media as referring to Mrs Dilek. I am informing you in detail in my evening notes.”

The judge did not hand the note to İmamoğlu. Instead, it was included in the official record.

It was then forwarded to the Bakırköy Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office, which oversees the detention facility, for administrative review, with a cover note stating that the document was found during cleaning in the courtroom and was considered unrelated to the case file, and therefore being sent for examination.

“Allegations of ‘you’ll be released if you say it like this’”

Following the note incident, the hearing continued for two days with defence lawyers submitting requests for the release of detained defendants.

During this phase, attorney Muhittin Arık, representing defendant Vedat Şahin—who has benefited from “effective remorse” provisions—made a striking allegation, claiming that some lawyers had visited the prison and attempted to influence his client by saying: “If you say it like this, you’ll be released.”

Arık stated:

“There are details about this, and they will also emerge from prison records. Under this psychological pressure, statements are given to the prosecutor. In the prosecutor’s office as well, in the prosecutor’s room, statements such as ‘this person said this about you, that person said that’ are made—and although, after the lifting of the confidentiality order, we see that such accusations do not exist—my client’s will was compromised and statements were taken. We now accept the first statements given at the police station and the prosecutor’s office.”

He added that they did not accept two statements his client allegedly gave under pressure within the scope of “effective remorse”.

A similar objection came from Elif Güven’s lawyer, Mehmet Ruşen Gültekin, who said his client had been taken from prison under the pretext of being sent to hospital and brought to the courthouse.

He stated:

“How was my client called to the prosecutor’s office on 10 April? The prosecutor does not summon her and ask, ‘Do you want to benefit from effective remorse?’ There is no such request from her either. A prison officer comes and says, ‘We will take you to hospital by ambulance, Elif.’ She has never been to the police station in her life, and believing she is going to hospital, she gets into the vehicle; but she is taken not to the hospital, but to Çağlayan Courthouse. Her lawyer is then called. We have submitted these details in our petitions. There, something is written that is contrary to the truth, dictated to someone who does not even know how to give a statement, and this is called ‘effective remorse’. My client does not even know what effective remorse is.”

İmamoğlu’s reaction to prosecutors

Following these remarks, Ekrem İmamoğlu expressed strong criticism of the prosecution.

He said:

“Your Honour, please take into account the suffering inflicted on these women, this sadism. This cannot be described in any other way. These cannot be described as prosecutorial conduct. There are other motives behind this sadism. Enough, we are overwhelmed.”

The presiding judge warned İmamoğlu not to speak without being granted the floor.

Murat Ongun declines release request

A surprising moment occurred when it was the turn of Murat Ongun’s lawyer. Ongun, İmamoğlu’s adviser and one of the defendants accused of leading the alleged organisation, instructed his lawyer not to request his release.

His lawyer, Rahşan Sertkaya Daniş, explained the reasoning:

“My client Murat Ongun has clearly stated to me that he does not wish to make a personal request for release until the female employees of Medya A.Ş., who have been unjustly separated from their children, mothers and fathers, are released.”

İmamoğlu speaks on behalf of lawyers

When it came to İmamoğlu’s defence lawyers, they stated that İmamoğlu himself would speak instead of them.

The presiding judge initially objected, noting that lawyers should present release requests, and a brief dispute followed. However, upon insistence, the court granted İmamoğlu the floor.

İmamoğlu emphasised the importance of the testimonies heard over the past three weeks:

“We have seen, one by one, how a prosecutor misled the entire Turkish nation through documents and files. Frankly, in what I heard today, in the intervening passages, and through my own experiences, my blood ran cold; I could hardly breathe, my chest tightened. It is deeply upsetting to hear again the suffering, the distress, and the mismanagement of such a wrongful process endured by these people.”

He also criticised the fact that the trial was not being broadcast live:

“What would happen if this trial were broadcast live? The wrongdoing would be exposed one by one; the prosecution would be discredited. It would become clear how flawed this political operation is. The nation would see the truth. Turkey would, I believe, begin to recover even within 40–45 days. Those who do not want transparency—Mr Erdoğan’s ears must be ringing. Mr Devlet Bahçeli’s ears must be ringing as well. Mr Erdoğan did not want it—because transparency was not desired. Secrecy, unfortunately, suits them. We will explain this to the nation.”

He also criticised the involvement of families in the case:

“They imprisoned people along with their families. Entire families! Is being a relative a crime? Where is that written in the law? Is this not shameful? Does the state set traps? Can the great Turkish state use the judiciary to hold people hostage? Can a father’s child be taken hostage? Can a spouse be used as leverage? This is unacceptable.”

İmamoğlu concluded:

“Release everyone—I am here. Let my colleagues go.”

18 defendants released

After the break, the court announced its interim decision.

While the prosecutor had requested the release of seven defendants, the court ordered the release of 18.

Those released included: Kadriye Kasapoğlu, Zehra Keleş, Sırrı Küçük, Fatih Yağcı, Ali Üner, Evren Şirolu, Altan Ertürk, Ebubekir Akın, Hüseyin Yurddaş, Kadir Öztürk, Sabri Caner Kırca, Mahir Gün, Davut Bildik, Esra Huri Bulduk, Başak Tatlı, Nazan Başelli, Mustafa Bostancı, and Baran Gönül.

The court imposed a travel ban on all released defendants.

Following the reading of the decision, İmamoğlu embraced those released, telling them: “Keep fighting.”

The trial, in which 89 defendants remain in custody, is set to continue on Monday with further defence hearings.

Fifth week

The fifth week of the İBB case has now concluded.

On Monday morning, 6 April, as soon as the hearing began, it was announced that the number of defendants in the case had increased.

In the defendant seats that previously held 407 individuals, there are now 414 names. This is because a separate case involving allegations of corruption at Beyoğlu Municipality—containing seven defendants—has been merged with the main İBB case.

At the end of the fourth week of the İBB trial, 18 people had been released, leaving 89 defendants in detention.

However, with this merger, the number of detainees also increased. With three additional detained defendants, including Beyoğlu Mayor İnan Güney, the number of detained defendants in the İBB case has risen to 92.

Monday, 6 April

Complaint over meals from detained defendants

As soon as the hearing began on Monday, Ekrem İmamoğlu took the floor.

He raised complaints from detained defendants that they were not being provided with sufficient meals.

İmamoğlu said:

“There are serious complaints from our colleagues on this issue. Some who bring packaged food items here from the prison could not bring them this morning upon leaving detention, they were not allowed to take them. Is this a decision of the court, or is this an implementation within prisons—and could you have any influence over it? Another issue: we had a request for lunch provision during the day. We had asked for support on resolving this issue this week. Our officers are also following the process.”

Referring to last week’s release decisions, İmamoğlu stressed the importance of fair trial guarantees and called for proper judicial process:

“People who defrauded the Central Bank are out in the field, released within three months. But here, people who have devoted their lives to their state are detained and going through trial. There are truly very innocent people here. I repeat: there are women, children, siblings, families… a very heavy burden is placed on you. In the process of fair and proper trial, we will stand by every step you take towards justice—but if not, we will also show the necessary reaction.”

Court response on food provision

The presiding judge responded to İmamoğlu’s remarks on food:

The Judge said that the issue of meal provision had been previously communicated. He explained that only an evening meal service had been made possible, noting that although this was not fully in line with regulations, it had been allowed as an exceptional measure due to the length of hearings. He added that he had no information regarding food brought from prison, and that the court had no direct authority to intervene in such matters. However, he said he would speak informally with relevant authorities and try to find a possible solution if one existed.

Reaction from defendant Aykut Erdoğdu

Former MP Aykut Erdoğdu, one of the detained defendants, also reacted strongly to the food conditions:

“Torture has started downstairs (in the detainee holding area). They used to put a thin slice of cheese between bread, even that is no longer given. There is no food downstairs, and the place is filthy. How can this be allowed?”

Response from the prosecutor’s office

Bakırköy Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office issued a statement rejecting the allegations:

“The cleaning of the area is carried out regularly by the prison administration, and daily food and water are provided according to the number of detainees attending the hearing. In addition, depending on the hearing schedule, an application has been introduced to provide hot meals from the campus cafeteria as the evening meal for detainees.”

Zafer Keleş: “My detention grounds are not in the indictment”

Following these exchanges, the trial continued with the defence statements of the defendants.

Zafer Keleş, the brother of İBB Sports Club President Fatih Keleş, who is also a detained defendant, gave his statement. He drew attention to the fact that multiple members of his family are in prison.

Keleş said:

“We have been detained here for 11 months, almost a year. Four members of one family are here, forming what is almost a ‘rectangle’—my brother, my son, my nephew, and me. What did we do? The grounds for my detention are not even in the indictment; I was not initially detained for membership in an organisation. Three months later they came and said, ‘You are now also included under organisation charges.’ At first I was shocked—‘What organisation is this, what have they dragged us into?’ We are devastated inside, just waiting.”

Claims of pressure on testimony

Zafer Keleş’s lawyer, Yağmur Kavak, claimed that some defendants had been pressured into giving statements against her client and his family, allegedly through certain lawyers.

She said:

“Lawyer Mehmet Yıldırım told defendant Yener Torunler: ‘Unless you say you carried money to Fatih Keleş or Zafer Keleş, you cannot be released—give your statement accordingly.’ However, when Torunler did not give such a statement, he was arrested. This time, Mehmet Yıldırım visited him in prison and insisted: ‘Say that you delivered 15,000 dollars to Zafer in an envelope; otherwise we cannot get you out.’ Torunler again refused, saying, ‘I cannot slander someone.’”

Lawyer Kavak stressed the significance of the alleged $15,000 detail:

“My client Zafer Keleş had a $15,000 transaction receipt that he handed over to the police when he was detained on 17 May. So how does lawyer Mehmet Yıldırım know that there was $15,000 on my client? There was a confidentiality order in the case. While even we cannot access documents related to our own client, how does Mehmet Yıldırım know about the search and seizure report? Someone must have told him. So who informed him that there was $15,000 on my client?”

Allegation over an “unused application”

Following Zafer Keleş and his lawyer, another key figure took the stand: Emrah Yüksel, the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality (İBB) Head of Information Technologies.

According to the prosecution, Ekrem İmamoğlu and his team allegedly caused the leakage of Istanbul residents’ data to foreign countries through applications such as İBB Hanem and İstanbul Senin.

The court panel also appeared to pay close attention to Yüksel’s defence.

The Presiding Judge said:

“Emrah, explain point 13 properly for us—this is the most difficult allegation. We arranged the order accordingly.”

Ekrem İmamoğlu added from the defendant’s seat:

“Only the prosecutor understood it—and even that incorrectly.”

Emrah Yüksel responded:

“Thank you, Your Honour, for easing my nerves.”

Yüksel told the court that during his testimony at the prosecutor’s office, he had been asked to assess the İstanbul Senin application.

He said:

“The prosecutor said, ‘Emrah, if any data has been extracted, through which technical channels could this have happened?’ First of all, we were talking about the MDM (İBB Main Data Management) system, which is a large database. The allegation here is that 4.7 million records were accessed. In software, everything is either 0 or 1—everything is definitive. Access logs and all actions can be tracked. I told the prosecutor that even in such a case, system logs—meaning historical records—would allow us to technically determine who performed which action. But since then, I have not seen any reference to those logs in the indictment.”

Yüksel also stated that the İBB Hanem application mentioned in the indictment was never actually deployed for public use.

“The İBB Hanem application is not an application designed for public use. It has never been an app that citizens could use. Most importantly, it remained in the testing phase and was never activated operationally.”

İmamoğlu alleges “conflict of interest” between expert witnesses and prosecutors

After hearing the defences of İBB Information Technology Head Emrah Yüksel and İBB Road Construction, Maintenance and Repair Department Head Seyrullah Demirel, Ekrem İmamoğlu also reacted to the expert witness reports presented in the case.

He called for scrutiny of the relationship between court-appointed experts and the prosecution, suggesting possible improper ties.

İmamoğlu said:

“The expert findings must be carefully examined. I believe a criminal complaint should be filed regarding all of these experts. I allege that there are reports written through a system established by a conflict of interest between the prosecution and the expert witnesses. Such deliberate wording does not happen otherwise.”

Following these statements, the court adjourned the hearing.

As he left the courtroom, İmamoğlu addressed those present:

“Do you know why this case is collapsing? Because there is an extraordinarily unjust prosecution. The prosecution in this case is the only criminal organisation.”

His remarks triggered both a new investigation and renewed political controversy the following day.

Tuesday, 7 April

“If you overstep your limits, we will show you your limits as the prosecution.”

Following these remarks, the Bakırköy Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office launched an investigation against İmamoğlu on charges of “insulting a public official due to their duty.”

A heated exchange also took place in the courtroom between İmamoğlu and the prosecutor.

Prosecutor: “Mr. Chairman, before we begin, I had a question for İmamoğlu. Yesterday, after the hearing, you reportedly made a statement like ‘the prosecution has collapsed,’ is that correct?”

Ekrem İmamoğlu: “I will address it shortly.”

Prosecutor: “Not shortly, I am asking now. Since such a statement has been made, please respond on that matter.”

Ekrem İmamoğlu: “I will present my answer shortly.”

Prosecutor: “Before making definitions about a criminal organization, be careful with your statements about the prosecution. A similar situation occurred in the first hearing as well, with a tone of questioning and confrontation. As the prosecution, we do not accept such statements.”

Ekrem İmamoğlu: “Such a dialogue cannot be established… Mr. Judge, this is like bullying…”

Prosecutor: “There is no bullying or anything of that sort. These statements that cast a shadow over the trial and attempt to pressure the prosecution must be abandoned. This is not an appropriate approach.”

Presiding Judge: “Prosecutor, that is enough.”

Prosecutor: “Look, if you overstep your limits, we will show you your limits as the prosecution. Do not overstep your limits. Let your client be careful with their statements; you are talking about limits.”

These remarks triggered strong reactions from both İmamoğlu and his lawyers. The presiding judge tried to calm the parties.

Presiding Judge: “Alright, Lawyer, alright. Prosecutor, let’s avoid personal matters, let’s not enter into dialogue. Lawyer, stay calm. Prosecutor, there is no need for this discussion.”

Prosecutor: “Mr. Ekrem, be careful with your statements.”

Presiding Judge: “Prosecutor, let’s not get personal. Let’s not prolong this.”

Lawyers: “The prosecutor should know his place, Mr. Chairman.”

Presiding Judge: “Alright, Lawyer. You are reacting to the phrase ‘showing limits,’ but you are using the same expression. Nothing changes.”

Lawyers: “Let him speak with your permission. You cannot do the same.”

Ekrem İmamoğlu: (turning to the prosecutor) “Who are you looking at?”

Presiding Judge: “Mr. Ekrem, let’s not intervene.”

Ekrem İmamoğlu: “Not Mr. Ekrem! What’s going on, who are you looking at?”

Prosecutor: “Mr. Ekrem, look… I am not changing my tone. Do not address me as ‘you’ informally.”

After the tension subsided, İmamoğlu took the floor again.

He described the indictment as a “false accusation document” and claimed it had become a stepping stone for promotions.

“This false indictment has produced a consequence. Unfortunately, it has turned into a promotion document. I attribute the recent tension to that. I must expose how these diagrams are drawn. What kind of organization is this, where I, supposedly the leader of this organization, do not even know the supposed manager? This is a political trial. As I said earlier, it has collapsed. The main diagram has collapsed because the person labeled as an organizational manager is not even recognized as a member by the organization itself. Another authority has collapsed as well—the prosecution; it has also collapsed.”

Iraz Bayrak: “I am accused of being involved in a project I never worked on and transferring data abroad.”

Iraz Bayrak, a 27-year-old software engineer working at İBB, also gave her defense.

Bayrak, who is accused of data leakage related to the “İstanbul Senin” application, argued that she did not even have access to the system.

“I have never worked on the Istanbul Senin project. I am not part of the project. I started working at the municipality in 2021. I am stating this very clearly. In the indictment, I am described as a manager in the Istanbul Senin application. I have no access to the data, I have never worked on the project, my name does not even appear there, yet I am being accused of participating in the project and transferring data abroad.”

She said that she only spoke once on the phone with department head Erol Özgüner over four years, and that this is being presented as evidence of a crime.

“After the indictment was issued while I was in prison, I checked the dates; the call date is one month before my wedding date, and I invited Mr. Erol to my wedding. Mr. Erol did not attend my wedding, and I later got divorced anyway. If I had known that calling Mr. Erol once would be linked to membership in an organization, I would not even have invited him to my wedding.”

Wednesday, 8 April

Aykut Erdoğdu: “Court transcripts should be uploaded to the system daily”

During the ongoing hearings, former MP Aykut Erdoğdu took the floor on Wednesday and said that pro-government media was distorting the defense statements made in the trial.

He argued that court transcripts should be uploaded daily to the system accessible to lawyers.

“Court transcripts are important for this reason. For example, when I give a statement here, was there any question I couldn’t answer? No. But a headline appears saying: ‘Aykut Erdoğdu could not answer the questions.’ If the transcript were available, we would publish it.”

Following his earlier criticism about food conditions, Erdoğdu also reacted to news reports claiming his statements were false.

“Many television channels reported: ‘Aykut Erdoğdu lied about the food, meals were being provided.’ It is a sin—this is unfair to us. Were we being provided meals until today? Yesterday the chief prosecutor came, and food was provided.”

Thursday, 9 April

Necati Özkan: “I have been subjected to many unlawful and discriminatory practices.”

Among the defendants accused of leaking voter data through applications such as “İstanbul Senin” and “İBB Hanem,” one of the most significant defenses came from Necati Özkan. Özkan, one of the figures who managed Ekrem İmamoğlu’s election campaigns, emphasized that everything began with preparations for a presidential campaign.

“When Mr. İmamoğlu entered a competition within his party for the presidency, we had already started preparing that campaign; and you all know what happened afterwards. Unfortunately, for more than a year in this case, many issues that are required by procedural justice have not been observed. Before the file even came before you, I personally have been subjected to many unlawful and discriminatory practices throughout this process.”

He stated that he first learned about the allegations from social media posts and emphasized that his name had been circulated days before the operation with claims that he would be arrested.

He also described a message he received before his detention:

“The message came from the Beşiktaş Zoning Directorate, stating: ‘A transaction regarding your property is being carried out,’ but without explaining why. I said to my lawyer, Mr. Altan Demir: ‘Altan, can you check this? It looks like a fraud, can you investigate?’ He looked into it and said, ‘Yes, the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office has launched an operation, so they have placed a restriction.’ I said, ‘Then let’s go to the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office immediately, let’s understand what this is about and give our statement.’ We went, but the 7th floor was a dead end—you cannot pass. We have already submitted three petitions about this, saying: ‘I am here, I want to testify, please let us in,’ but we were not allowed in. Then, in the morning operation, we were detained. When I arrived at Vatan Police Headquarters, it was not even 06:00, but television channels were already reporting: ‘Necati Özkan has been arrested.’”

Özkan said he tried to collect evidence in his favor from his single-person prison cell.

“I am forcing my family, colleagues at the office, my lawyers—I ask them to bring documents. I request: ‘Bring me these documents.’ I submitted nearly 200 pieces of evidence with petitions to the prosecution. However, none of these were included in the indictment in any way. The prosecution must remain impartial.”

Necati Özkan: “I learned about the espionage charge from the prison television”

He stated that he was transferred to another prison without informing his family or lawyers.

“While I was in Silivri, at 07:00 in the morning they came and said: ‘We are leaving.’ Where to? We didn’t know. I was transferred without knowing my destination until the very moment we arrived. I was taken to Kocaeli F-Type Prison No. 2, 140-odd kilometers away from Istanbul, isolated from my lawyer and my family, with my defense rights restricted. What did I even do here? What misconduct did I commit to be sent there? Whose decision is this? I still do not know.”

He said he learned about the espionage charge while watching television in prison, and described trying to remember Hüseyin Gün, who is listed as a “leader” in the indictment.

“I turned on the television in the morning; there was something about espionage allegations regarding Merdan Yanardağ… then subtitles: ‘Necati Özkan, İmamoğlu.’ I mean, what espionage case? And there is also Hüseyin Gün. Who is this Hüseyin Gün? I swear to you, I could not remember him at first. In the afternoon, Mr. Erkan came to visit me and brought a photo: a picture taken with Ekrem İmamoğlu in his office. I still could not remember the man, but I immediately remembered the woman. Because she looked like someone from the fashion style of the 1850s–1860s, as if she had come from the streets of Paris. It is impossible to forget her—not her face, but her style, her clothing, her hat… I said, ‘Okay, sir, this is a joke.’ But it turned out not to be a joke. We were arrested, Mr. Chairman—we were arrested!”

Due to the length of his statement, the court adjourned, and his defense was postponed to Monday, 13 April.

In the courtroom: a bag filled with 500,000 lira

Among the most striking defenses this week was that of Yiğit Gökçehan Koçoğlu, lawyer for İBB executive Melih Geçek.

Koçoğlu argued in court that the indictment, which relies heavily on phone base-station records and statements from so-called “confessors,” is not legally sound. To illustrate his point, he brought a bag filled with money into the courtroom and showed it to the panel.

“If I were to say: ‘I gave 500,000 lira in bribes to Judge Selçuk Aylan in exchange for my client’s release’… what would we need now? We would need a bag. Well, here is the bag. We would need money—here is 500,000 lira. Where is the bag? The bag is here. Where is the money? The money is here. Where is the receipt? The receipt is here. Where is the base-station data? We have shown you zero-meter base data today. How are you going to prove it? If I were to come out two years later and say, ‘The court panel accepted a bribe in this case, on this date,’ and file it, what could you do? How would you clear your name? These people are being slandered with bribery they never took. It is shameful, it is unjust, it is a sin.”

Next week, in addition to Necati Özkan, İmamoğlu’s security director Mustafa Akın and members of the security team are expected to give their defenses.

Sixth week

The sixth week of the trial involving 414 defendants—92 of whom remain in detention—began, as it has almost every week, with Ekrem İmamoğlu taking the floor first. He referred to last week’s remark by the prosecution, when the prosecutor said, “we will show you your limits.”

Following İmamoğlu, his campaign director Necati Özkan and advertising professional Esma Bayrak presented their defenses against allegations of bribery and espionage on the one hand, and claims regarding alleged failures in personal data protection in the “İstanbul Senin” application on the other.

After Özkan and Bayrak, KİPTAŞ Board Chairman Ali Kurt and İmamoğlu’s former police bodyguard Mustafa Akın also gave statements. In his defense, Akın addressed the issue of signal jammers, stating that they were carried for security reasons.

Fayn has compiled the key developments from the sixth week of the proceedings.

Monday, 13 April

Ekrem İmamoğlu: “Who is the owner of the sentence ‘we will show you your limits’?”

As soon as the hearing began, Ekrem İmamoğlu took the floor and first reacted to the operations and detentions that have been ongoing for more than a year.

“This is hurting all of us. I can say it has now reached a level of what can only be described as torture whose nature is no longer even clear. Why ambiguity is preferred in this matter is also something that cannot really be explained. Look: there are friends who have been detained for more than 11 months, and nothing is still clear. These are mothers, fathers, workers. There are very young people among them.”

He also reminded the court that even his driver had been detained.

“There is not a single word about their actions. It is not even clear why they were detained. I am raising this so that, with your sensitivity and the panel’s sensitivity, you may consider whether anything can be done. Of course, I am also voicing this so that it is included in the prosecution’s record. This is an unbelievable situation. Truly a shameful state of affairs.”

İmamoğlu once again stressed that detention reviews should be assessed through interim decisions and referred to last week’s words of the prosecutor: “If you overstep your limits, we will show you your limits.”

Ekrem İmamoğlu: “Last week, I personally heard the prosecutor’s threat directed at me: ‘If you overstep your limits, we will show you your limits.’ You also heard this in this courtroom. This is a threat, and it has been recorded, Mr. Chairman. Who is the owner of this threatening statement?”

Presiding Judge: “Continue with your defense.”

Ekrem İmamoğlu: “I was threatened. On whose behalf is this threat made? On behalf of which organization? Which institution? Who are the individuals? What does the threat cover? Is it life safety? Property safety? Freedom? Family? Something else? Is the motivation behind ‘we will show you your limits’ also reflected in the operations and practices of the İBB case before this trial began? Will you take any action or precaution against such an explicit threat? If you say ‘no, we will take no measures, take your own precautions,’ then I will take my own precautions and act accordingly. You should have no doubt that I will do what is necessary in response to that threat. We have the people behind us.”

After this exchange between İmamoğlu and the presiding judge, the hearing continued with the defenses.

Necati Özkan: “My entire relationship with Hüseyin Gün consists of four meetings and a few WhatsApp messages.”

Necati Özkan, Ekrem İmamoğlu’s campaign director, whose defense had been interrupted last week, returned to the witness stand.

He responded to allegations that he received four apartments as a bribe from businessman Adem Kameroğlu, who is a “confessing witness” in the case:

“There was not a single statement against me at first, but then things changed. Someone apparently pulled this man aside, and he must have realized the threats and risks involved.”

He said he had made an agreement with Adem Kameroğlu in 2017 for advertising services for a housing project in Beylikdüzü. He claimed that he received apartments in return for his receivable:

“We decided to invest part of my receivable into this project. So we agreed on three apartments for ourselves, and one apartment for my partner Ayşe Hitchins. As a result of negotiations, I received a 22.5% discount. Mr. Adem said, ‘Brother, I need cash,’ so I handed the money in cash.”

He also responded to espionage allegations:

“The only connection I have with Hüseyin Gün, who has been included in this case and even positioned as an ‘organization manager’ above me in a supposed hierarchy, consists of a total of four meetings and a few WhatsApp messages. After the indictment was issued, I even questioned myself, thinking: ‘How can I have so many HTS (call record) matches with Hüseyin Gün?’ My office is in Akmerkez, my home is in Sarı Konaklar right next to it, and the campaign headquarters is in Levent. Hüseyin Gün’s home is also right in the middle of this area. If I had 300 HTS matches with this gentleman, I would actually be undercounting; because I spend 24 hours of my day in this area.”

Özkan requested acquittal and added:

“I request that criminal proceedings for false testimony be applied against Hüseyin Gün and Adem Kameroğlu, who have made false accusations against me.”

After Özkan’s statement, Ekrem İmamoğlu also asked him questions.

Ekrem İmamoğlu: “Have you ever bought any apartment from İmamoğlu Construction?”

Necati Özkan: “No, Mr. Chairman.”

Ekrem İmamoğlu: “Good thing you didn’t. Good thing you didn’t.”

Ekrem İmamoğlu: “How many elections have we lost together? How many have we won? Which ones were they?”

Necati Özkan: “Mr. Chairman, we have won all elections in which citizens voted. So all four election campaigns we worked on together… The fifth one was interrupted. The presidential campaign…”

Ekrem İmamoğlu: “Hopefully we will complete that one too, Mr. Özkan.”

Ali Kurt: “Adem Soytekin’s allegations are incredibly exaggerated”

After Necati Özkan, on Tuesday the advertising executive Esma Bayrak gave her defense statement.

Accused of accessing voters’ data through the “İstanbul Senin” application, Esma Bayrak stated that she did not take part in any technical phase of the application.

She explained that personal data cannot be accessed through the İstanbul Senin application:

“There is no Google Tag Manager (GTM) in the İstanbul Senin application. However, no matter what you integrate into that Google Tag Manager in those emails you are shown, it is technically impossible to access personal data; this is not possible technically. Moreover, there is no tool that allows you to download such data technically. In fact, we are witnessing how a simple code can create so much confusion. As someone who has set up this system at least once a month for 10 years, I would like to add this detail: normally for digital advertising, I have been sending this code for 10 years. So this is already the nature of the job. Frankly, I never imagined that one day I would be explaining such a workflow in a Criminal Court of First Instance.”

Next to give his defense was KİPTAŞ Board Chairman Ali Kurt. Kurt described the allegations against him as fiction:

“The allegations in the indictment regarding me are unfortunately built on the misinterpretation of technical concepts, contradictory statements by individuals trying to escape responsibility under the name of ‘effective remorse,’ and narratives that do not match concrete facts.”

Stating that he worked at TOKİ for many years and joined KİPTAŞ after Ekrem İmamoğlu became mayor of Istanbul in 2019, Ali Kurt said the institution’s debts were gradually paid off over the years:

“When we took over KİPTAŞ, we faced serious difficulties. When I became general manager, KİPTAŞ had a debt of 1.2 billion TL to the market, in the currency of that time. With today’s exchange rate, this corresponds to 220 million dollars, or approximately 9.5 billion TL, Mr. President. Within a year, we brought all our debts under control; in fact, after a year and a half, we eliminated our debts entirely.”

He described businessman Adem Soytekin, one of the whistleblowers in the case, as the “phenomenon of the indictment.” He also claimed he was pressured during detention:

“I was also pressured regarding Adem Soytekin. They said, ‘Name him,’ I did not. They said, ‘Name Ertan,’ I did not. Because I cannot say something I do not know. The conditions were very easy; if I had said ‘Adem Soytekin was like this or like that,’ we would not be here today, as you know. But Adem Soytekin… may such an effective remorse be granted to everyone; because his allegations are incredibly exaggerated.”

Wednesday, 15 April

Mustafa Akın: “If there were a secret situation, would this hotel—frequently used by state officials for meetings—really be the one chosen?”

Following the defenses of Ali Kurt and his lawyers, Ekrem İmamoğlu’s bodyguard, retired police officer Mustafa Akın, gave his statement.

He spoke about the signal jammer brought to the hotel where İmamoğlu held meetings:

“Friends who worked under the protection and security of the late Kadir Topbaş did us another favor. There is an accusation against us involving what we call a jammer. Signal jamming devices were procured at that time. They also made our job easier. I would like to thank them again for their foresight.”

Stating that they carried the jammer for security reasons, Mustafa Akın said the device was not used at the Le Meridien Hotel:

“In the statement of our colleague Çağlar Türkmen, it is clearly stated that the jammer devices were taken to the mentioned hotel in a suitcase and left there without being activated. The hotel manager Sinan Budil also clearly stated that there was absolutely no disruption of communication or signals at the hotel. In other words, there was no situation in which communication was blocked. There is one of Istanbul’s largest base stations on top of the hotel. In such a place, it is not possible for these devices to function because the technical features of the base stations prevent such devices from working.”

Koruma Mustafa Akın also addressed the issue of cameras being taped over at the hotel:

“This refers to the camera overlooking the area where the President changed clothes before or after the meeting. If there had been any intention to hide the meeting or participants as alleged, wouldn’t the entrance and exit cameras of the hotel also have been covered? If there was something secret, wouldn’t they have used the VIP entrance on the fourth floor of the hotel? If there was something secret, would this hotel—frequently used for meetings by state officials—really have been chosen?”

He also said he had never witnessed any secret meetings involving İmamoğlu:

“I have never witnessed any secret meeting anywhere. There were always two official police officers assigned by the state accompanying us. They constantly worked with us. Therefore, such a thing is not possible.”

After Mustafa Akın’s statement, Ekrem İmamoğlu asked questions. These questions led to a dispute between İmamoğlu and the presiding judge.

Ekrem İmamoğlu: “For example, I would like to look at the prosecution’s questioning of the jammer issue here with a slight smile, but I won’t do that. Do you know why? Because the people who prepared this indictment…”

Presiding Judge: “Let’s take the question.”

Ekrem İmamoğlu: “The people who prepared this indictment have made us experience the ignorance of accusing people through the jammer issue. Of course, the reason for this ignorance is not them. I take my words back. The only responsible party is the period of stagnation created in every field by the mentality governing Turkey. The questions asked to people who have served the state for 40 years are all in this indictment. I even find it shameful that you are asking these again. I am saying this both to you and to the prosecution.”

Presiding Judge: “That is your discretion…”

Ekrem İmamoğlu: “Of course it is my discretion, Your Honor. However you interpret it. Look, we served 20 million people in Istanbul during a period when I was tracked via surveillance cameras, and images were leaked to the press by order of the police, the governor’s office, and the Ministry of Interior—and the judiciary said ‘no need for prosecution.’ Second, in Erzurum, we were attacked by 50 people while 200 police officers just watched. If you still question the jammer issue, I will question you as well. Very clearly.”

Presiding Judge: “Mr. Ekrem, let me intervene. We will ask and examine in your defense. There is an allegation in the indictment in this regard.”

Ekrem İmamoğlu: “I am also questioning an allegation. If you dig into that question…”

Presiding Judge: “If there is an allegation in the indictment, we will ask it. You cannot say ‘if you dig into the question.’ Shall we ignore it?”

Ekrem İmamoğlu: “No, don’t ignore it. People are in prison for months over camera tapes. What conscience allows this? Show me a single person imprisoned just for covering a camera.”

Presiding Judge: “Do you have a question?”

Ekrem İmamoğlu: “I have very good questions.”

Presiding Judge: “Go ahead, ask.”

Ekrem İmamoğlu: “If you listen, you will benefit. Believe me. We should explain these things, but if you do not listen, this is where it leads.”

Presiding Judge: “Mr. Ekrem, where does it lead? There is a procedure. You cannot say to the panel, ‘If you don’t listen, it will end up like this.’”

Ekrem İmamoğlu: “I am not saying that, Your Honor. I never said that. I am not saying ‘I will do this.’ I believe my questions and comments may be useful to you. Otherwise, asking questions alone becomes trivial. And when I refer to the prosecution, I am not personally addressing the prosecutor sitting on my left. He is not the target. My real address is much higher, the mentality at the very top.”

After Mustafa Akın, Ekrem İmamoğlu’s security team members Çağlar Türkmen and Davut Bildik, who removed camera recordings from his residence, also gave statements. Both denied the allegations in the indictment.

Next week, İmamoğlu’s chief of staff Kadriye Kasapoğlu is expected to give her defense. Kasapoğlu was among the 18 people released on bail.

Seventh week

The seventh week of the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality (İBB) case has also come to an end.

In the courtroom, where 414 individuals are on trial—92 of them in detention—there is now another mayor present. Following the merger of the Beyoğlu Municipality case with the İBB case in the sixth week, Beyoğlu Mayor İnan Güney also took his place among the defendants this week.

Fayn has compiled the events that took place during the seventh week.

Monday, 20 April

Ali Rıza Akyüz: “What should have happened was the closure of Capacity Mall and the implementation of a strengthening project. But they tried to cover this up by falsely accusing us of bribery.”

In the hearing, Ekrem İmamoğlu explained why he has been asking questions to the defendants giving their defenses:

“All the allegations in this indictment are, in a very skilful way, connected entirely to me. Therefore, I am obliged to ask these questions. Otherwise, I have no desire to take a microphone and perform a kind of serenade like this with everyone. These people are part of a process in which, in order to construct an indictment here, within an unlawful framework, they systematically tried to find ways to connect everything to ‘Ekrem İmamoğlu’—to pull it towards him, to get various people to accept this. The prosecution has, under instructions from someone, done everything possible to prepare this false indictment, pressured people, and had their statements changed in the second, third, fourth stages, building a process based on the idea of ‘connect everything to Ekrem.’ Beyoğlu Mayor İnan Güney has also been brought here for exactly this reason. He has been seated among us. The process has been structured and turned into a chain: ‘let’s also connect the Beyoğlu case to Ekrem, and continue the process from there.’”

Detained Bakırköy Deputy Mayor Ali Rıza Akyüz also gave his defense in the hearing.

He responded to allegations that a $5 million bribe was demanded from Capacity Mall:

“What should have happened was the closure of Capacity Mall and the implementation of a strengthening project. But they tried to cover this up by falsely accusing us of bribery. Even if they offered me 3, 5, or 15 [million], I could not grant them a license. Because they had already been penalized. A violation report had been issued, the case had been referred to the municipal council, a criminal complaint had been filed against them, and their court cases are ongoing. In a matter that has already gone to the judiciary, we have no authority to take action.”

Elçin Karaoğlu: “They threatened me using my 7-year-old daughter”

Following Akyüz’s statement, Boğaziçi Zoning Director Elçin Karaoğlu took the stand.

He stated that he is not a politician, but a 26-year civil servant:

“Thank God, I have never been confronted with even the slightest issue that would stain my name. As a public official who has served in senior administrative and technical roles for a long time, I have never faced such allegations. Especially during my time at the Boğaziçi Zoning Directorate, where I was subjected to these baseless accusations and slanders, there is no finding whatsoever of negligence or misconduct—let alone anything more serious, Mr. President. While performing my duties, I was exposed to significant pressure.”

At this point, the presiding judge intervened.

Presiding Judge: What do you mean by pressure, for example?

Elçin Karaoğlu: I was threatened. They threatened me using my 7-year-old daughter. I filed a criminal complaint. I am someone who even had to sue to retain my official position as zoning director. I was a director 12 years ago, and I was still a director on the day I was detained. Of course, I did my job—my profession is valuable to me. It is something I have carried out with honor. That is one thing, but I am just stating facts here.

He stressed that the allegations in the indictment were fictional:

“Contrary to what is constructed in the indictment, due to the involvement of multiple institutions in the field and the internal functioning of the department, it was technically and legally impossible for me, as Zoning Director, to be part of any unlawful agreement or commitment; I had no such authority.”

Responding to claims by whistleblower İBB survey engineer Yakup Öner—who alleged that illegal construction was allowed in a building owned by Halk TV’s Cafer Mahiroğlu in exchange for favorable coverage on the channel—Karaoğlu said:

“Two documents were mistaken as evidence. I say ‘mistaken,’ because those documents, on the contrary, are actually evidence in our favor, showing that all procedures we carried out as a department were complete and correct.”

Referring to Mahiroğlu’s building, Karaoğlu added:

“We sealed the building. We issued a demolition order. Not a single square meter of illegal construction remains unremoved. On 31 August 2022, a fine of 4,066,000 lira was imposed. My lawyers calculated that this corresponds to about 15 million lira in today’s value. However, none of these actions are included in the indictment, which is unfortunate.”

Tuesday, 21 April

The hearing was adjourned.

On Tuesday as well, Elçin Karaoğlu’s defense continued throughout the day.

After his statement, Ekrem İmamoğlu took the floor again and asked Karaoğlu questions.

Ekrem İmamoğlu: “Did I ever give you any unlawful or improper instruction?”

Elçin Karaoğlu: “No.”

Ekrem İmamoğlu: “After the period of plunder Istanbul was subjected to between 1994–2019 under the AK Party, and from 2019 onwards, after that period, has there been any construction built from scratch along the Bosphorus line? Is there any unlawful structure, I mean?”

Elçin Karaoğlu: “In my term, such a situation has not occurred. We have not allowed any illegal construction from scratch. There is no place where we turned a blind eye.”

İmamoğlu warned that with this kind of investigative approach, no one could serve as mayor:

“If such an indictment and such a bureaucratic practice based on unlawful detention is continued in this way—without merit, without truth, without evidence—then in Turkey there will be no mayor left in office, no bureaucrat left, no municipal council member left. Everyone will end up in courts, everyone will end up in prisons. And because of irresponsible prosecutors, the institutions of this state will be completely destroyed. I say this very clearly.”

Wednesday, 22 April

Mehmet Pehlivan: “I am not the first lawyer to face consequences for standing on the right side of history.”

Mehmet Pehlivan, one of the key figures in the case and Ekrem İmamoğlu’s lawyer, also delivered his defense. He said he stood on the right side of history.

“I am aware that I am not the first lawyer to face consequences for insisting on the law. I have said that I am not the first, that I am not the first lawyer to face consequences for standing on the right side of history. I was not forced. I made a conscious choice. Yes, I am here because I took on Mr. İmamoğlu’s legal representation. I could have refused. I could have stepped back. But I did not.”

He responded to the claim by informant Adem Soytekin that “before the İBB operations even began, Mehmet Pehlivan held a meeting and assigned everyone their lawyers”:

“Prosecutor Cahit Cihat Sarı knew that Adem’s statement was false. The lawyer I allegedly arranged, Onur Büyükhatipoğlu, has in fact been Adem’s lawyer for 10 years.”

Showing a 2021 court transcript presented by Soytekin, Pehlivan pointed out that Büyükhatipoğlu had already been involved in the case.

He accused the court of accepting the indictment without reading it:

“You accepted an indictment that is technically and materially impossible to read, within 14 days, even without deciding that it had been read. Despite numerous grounds for returning indictments, you accepted this one and did not return it; the prosecution announced it. The prosecution also announced decisions regarding detention and trial dates. The number of judge changes in Mr. İmamoğlu’s cases has reached 12—this morning I heard it is now 13; it is rapidly increasing. The panel that will handle the diploma case and the appellate review has been reassigned to Bursa.”

Pehlivan also alleged that the prosecution created fake secret witnesses during the investigation:

“The first fabricated secret witness is ‘İlke’, and his statement was taken on November 18, 2024. Two days after giving his testimony, ‘İlke’ stated that he did not want to testify. His statements were then reused identically under another secret witness named ‘Meşe’. Forgery is continuing at full scale. With those false statements, 28 different people were accused, detained, and arrested. 28 separate people, 28 separate families.”

He also claimed that those who agreed to cooperate were released, providing numbers:

“Out of 160 detainees, 60 were released during the investigation phase. We would like to say, ‘At least the prosecution realized its mistake and corrected it,’ but that is not the case. Almost all of those 60 people—58 of them—had one common feature: they changed their initial statements in line with the prosecution’s expectations, meaning they benefited from plea bargaining or effective remorse provisions.

This clearly reveals the true purpose of detention decisions: to produce informants. They achieved nothing with tens of thousands of documents. They played with people. Because people can be bent, broken, manipulated; they fear, they cannot endure being deprived of freedom, they give in, they get tired. The turning point they defined was not finding money or evidence, but getting someone to testify as an informant.”

He also referred to Justice Minister Akın Gürlek’s statement that “we do not rely solely on informant statements; we verify them through HTS records.”

“This is a major lie. The decision referring to HTS records came on October 7, 2025. But I was arrested on June 19, 2025 based solely on a statement. Those who say ‘we verify statements’ had in fact verified nothing at that time; they did not even feel the need to check records or conduct verification.”

Due to the length of Mehmet Pehlivan’s defense extending into the evening, the judge adjourned the hearing and postponed his statement to Monday.

Informant Adem Soytekin submits a petition to the court

Before ending the hearing, it was announced that defendant-turned-informant Adem Soytekin had submitted a petition to the court and he requested to speak.

Mehmet Pehlivan objected to the interruption of his defense.

Defense lawyer Mehmet Pehlivan: “You are interrupting the examination right now.”

Presiding Judge: “I will not ask your permission to grant him the floor. The individual submitted a petition to me two days ago.”

Other defense lawyers also supported Pehlivan’s objection.

Presiding Judge: “Lawyer, is everyone the lawyer of Mehmet Pehlivan?“

Lawyers in the room: “Yes, we are his lawyers.”

Presiding Judge: “There is no need to get this heated. I don’t understand the reason.”

Informant defendant Soytekin given the floor

The dispute lasted for minutes. Gendarmerie officers took security measures around Soytekin.

Then Adem Soytekin took the floor. He claimed that there had been verbal provocations during arrivals and departures from the hearings.

Adem Soytekin:
“Since the beginning of the trial, I have given statements within the scope of effective remorse and I remain consistent with that position. Even back then, when getting into vehicles or transport vans, there were verbal provocations. I didn’t care much, but when it became disturbing, I wanted to explain the issues through a petition.

I was sitting here, Murat Kapki was right in front of me. Murat Kapki turned around and said: ‘We will film this trial, will you play your role too?’ I said: ‘No, I don’t act. I don’t play any roles.’”

Murat Kapki: “You are lying. No one witnessed this, you are lying.”

Presiding Judge: “This is going in different directions. Let’s take necessary security measures.”

Adem Soytekin: “They are speaking very harshly…”

Presiding Judge: “We will take necessary security measures and precautions.”

Murat Kapki also requested to speak in response to the allegation.

Presiding Judge: “If you had waited until the statement was finished, I would have given you the floor too. But if you interrupt and shout repeatedly ‘I want to speak’, I will not give you the floor and will let the other person continue.”

Following this exchange, the panel left the courtroom.

Ekrem İmamoğlu then addressed the courtroom:

“We will explain calmly. Please listen carefully, please report it properly. A great injustice of history has truly been committed through this indictment and through the prosecution. Mehmet Pehlivan is a very strong young lawyer. Everything he explained, word by word, is true. Truth never disappears. We rely on truth.”

Court adjourned due to public holiday

Due to April 23 National Sovereignty and Children’s Day, the trial did not sit on Thursday.

Release decision in Ceyhan Municipality case

During the same seventh week of the İBB trial, another hearing was held in a separate courtroom in the same building in the case against the “Aziz İhsan Aktaş Criminal Organization,” which triggered investigations into CHP-run municipalities.

In the trial attended by Aziz İhsan Aktaş—who had become an informant and was released—the court ordered the release of 5 defendants, including Ceyhan Mayor Kadir Aydar. However, the detention of 11 people, including Beşiktaş Mayor Rıza Akpolat, Seyhan Mayor Oya Tekin, and Avcılar Mayor Utku Caner Çaykara, was upheld.