Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality (IMM) Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu of Turkey was taken into custody on the morning of March 19. Yesterday, he testified at the Financial Crimes Department under accusations of “leading a criminal organization”; today, his statement was completed regarding allegations of “membership in a terrorist organization,” and he was referred to Çağlayan Courthouse for prosecution. The investigation process and the 121-page testimony have made Turkey’s judicial reality visible to all: a system not focused on investigating crimes and criminals, but one designed to punish those targeted by the ruling power.
The methods used in İmamoğlu’s case are reminiscent of the judicial processes following December 17-25, 2013: secret witnesses, vague accusations, MASAK (Financial Crimes Investigation Board) reports, media-driven perception operations, withholding evidence from the defense while leaking it to pro-government media, and fabricating evidence through interpretation… The same language, the same method, the same motivation. The culprit has been determined; now it’s time to arrange the evidence!
Starting as Guilty
A close look at the testimony reveals that İmamoğlu was approached with the presumption of guilt from the outset. Instead of investigating the crime and the perpetrator, an attempt was made to construct a “crime narrative” in line with the prejudices of the current political power. Initially, general questions to warm up, followed by leading questions designed to corner him…
Secret witness statements, MASAK reports, vague allegations, and out-of-context connections have been instrumentalized to build the narrative of “criminal organization leadership”; the judicial process has been used not to uncover the truth but to achieve a political goal.
We have long tried to explain that this method has been systematically applied, especially in decree-law (KHK) processes and against all opposition groups since 2014. However, people either didn’t hear or didn’t want to hear. Today, İmamoğlu and those around him have become the new victims of this method, and society has started to see this fabricated judicial system more clearly. Or let’s say, they might start seeing it.
What we are facing is not a “legal model” but a systematic political campaign in which the ruling power uses the judiciary as a weapon of punishment.
Confidentiality in the Case File, Propaganda on the Screens
During the investigation phase, a restriction under Article 153 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CMK), which was introduced during the processes against police officers following the December 17-25 operations, is used to prevent lawyers from accessing the case files of detainees. However, MASAK reports and secret witness statements from the same file are leaked to pro-government media without any hindrance.
The file is “confidential,” but the headlines are already prepared! What will be written, when it will be released, and how public perception will be shaped have all been predetermined. This scenario does not indicate a legal process but a political engineering effort. Evidence is not used for judicial purposes but for perception management. Particularly, the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office, led by Akın Gürlek, has ceased to be a justice institution and has turned into a political propaganda center.
For a long time, we have known that justice is no longer dispensed in courtrooms but on politicians’ social media accounts. The presumption of innocence exists only in law books; in practice, everyone is declared guilty in advance. The fact that Interior Minister Ali Yerlikaya presents unlawful operations as a “success story” is clear proof that the presumption of innocence has been effectively abolished.
The secret witness system, which appears once again in this case, has become a standard tool in politically motivated trials for years. However, this tool does not serve justice but facilitates the instrumentalization of the judiciary. Secret witness testimonies have turned into a systemic abuse model used to arrest, convict, and discredit people in the public eye.
No one—regardless of political ideology—should downplay this situation with theoretical defenses such as “Secret witnesses are only supporting evidence.” The current reality is clear: secret witness testimony is not legal evidence but a tool for manipulation.
Political Accusations Should Be Confronted with Principles
Examining political cases in Turkey from a legal perspective is a flawed approach because these cases are not shaped by legal principles but by the political stance of the ruling power. Who is targeted in the investigation is more important than the evidence. In fact, the existence of evidence itself does not even matter.
In this context, saying, “Let’s see what’s in the case file first,” or allowing such a discussion to take place, means ignoring the core issue. In cases of political accusations, the so-called evidence is not actual proof but merely a pretext. Therefore, attempting to validate these cases with “legal reasoning” only helps to legitimize an ongoing political campaign.
The past decade in Turkey has clearly demonstrated that as judicial independence weakens, anyone opposing political power becomes a potential defendant. The process that Ekrem İmamoğlu is facing today is essentially the same process that teachers, journalists, academics, and lawyers dismissed by decree-laws (KHK) went through.
For this reason, anyone who believes in the rule of law and fights for justice must move beyond the reflex of “Let’s first see the case file” and develop a clear principle: Political accusations are inherently unlawful. This is not only the responsibility of the victims but of everyone who desires a just society.
