Defendants Seek Release in Istanbul Municipality Corruption Trial

Detained defendants in the case known as the Ekrem İmamoğlu Profit-Oriented Criminal Organization trial presented their defense arguments during the fifth session of the third hearing. The case involves 436 suspects, 46 of whom are in custody, and is being heard at Istanbul's 33rd Heavy Penal Court in Silivri.

Mehmet Murat Çalık, identified in the indictment as an organization member who allegedly conducted bribery discussions on behalf of Ekrem İmamoğlu within the Beylikdüzü Municipality structure, requested his release. He stated that no concrete or verifiable incident regarding bribery attributed to him has emerged and mentioned that he has survived cancer twice.

“My only document that I can change today, the only witness I can influence, is gone. Therefore, we have been in custody for 20 months. I can no longer accept remaining in detention for the future.”

Zafer Keleş, the brother of İBB Sports Club President Fatih Keleş, also sought release. He said he was detained because of a single sentence by a person named Ertan Yıldız and rejected the accusations against him.

Resul Emrah Şahan, another detained defendant, was described in the indictment as having been alongside Ekrem İmamoğlu since the latter's term as Beylikdüzü Mayor and as having conducted bribery discussions on İmamoğlu's behalf within the Şişli Municipality structure.

Kağan Sürmegöz, the İBB Real Estate Management Department Director who has been in custody for 20 months, was the first to speak at the podium regarding the release request. He denied being a member of a criminal organization, obtaining unjust benefits, or issuing or carrying out illegal instructions.

Sürmegöz stated that there was no direct testimony about him in the statements of those who benefited from effective remorse and that the accusations were based on hearsay and inferences. He also said the tender methods in question were not created after 2019 and that the same practices continued in previous years.

Sürmegöz argued that detention grounds had lost their validity because evidence had been collected and witnesses heard, saying no document or witness remained that he could change or influence. He added that he had been in custody for 20 months and could no longer accept remaining in detention.