Ekrem İmamoğlu, the President of the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality, has been at the center of a storm following his detention on accusations of corruption and terrorism. On March 22, 2025, İmamoğlu, along with 105 others, was taken into custody by the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor's Office. The investigations into İmamoğlu have sparked widespread controversy and significant public response.
The charges against İmamoğlu are severe, ranging from being the manager and member of a criminal organization to embezzlement, bribery, and allegedly aiding the PKK/KCK terrorist organization. Following his detention, İmamoğlu underwent interrogation in connection with the investigations, which he argues are politically motivated and meant to undermine his reputation as a prominent political figure.
According to a report from Habertürk, İmamoğlu's interrogation lasted five hours, during which he provided an 18-page statement detailing his knowledge and involvement pertaining to the allegations against him. The scandal has led to a host of public reactions, with some defending İmamoğlu while others express skepticism towards his claims.
Nihal Bengisu Karaca, a columnist for Habertürk, shared her critique of the rapid handling of İmamoğlu's case on her X account, remarking, "With hundreds of other cases either unresolved or delayed, the swift actions taken regarding certain figures highlight preference over justice." Her statement stirred a mix of support and criticism among users, with some recalling her political ties to the ruling AKP and expressing their surprise at her comments.
As details of İmamoğlu's interrogation emerged, his own sentiments about the investigation became clear. He stated, "This process has damaged Turkey's reputation, undermined the sense of law and justice, upset the economy, and ruined the hopes of young people." İmamoğlu expressed his disdain particularly towards questions regarding his travel history, calling it "the highest level of immorality" to suggest any illegal activity.
In his long statement, İmamoğlu also criticized the timing of the investigation, noting that it initiated approximately seven months after the 2024 local election, during which the AK Party lost control in Istanbul and several districts. He interpreted this event as a deliberate political attack, saying, "I think it is deliberate political intervention through the judiciary," expressing frustration over what he perceives as an unjust pursuit of legal action against him and his colleagues.
Throughout the questioning, İmamoğlu maintained that he could not be responsible for the validity of the council members in question, primarily representing the interests of various political factions. He reiterated, "I do not know the names or statements of terrorist organizations," emphasizing ignorance towards any potential affiliations of his team with such organizations.
In light of allegations surrounding conversations linked to 390 individuals integrated into the investigation, İmamoğlu defended himself by stating that the phone numbers implicated were used by close colleagues, elaborating that his daily communications involve numerous contacts that may include various political figures and parties from over the years.
Furthermore, İmamoğlu condemned the reliance on secret witnesses in this investigation, describing their statements as "fabricated" and "filled with unfounded claims." He remarked that the judicial system’s current approach towards secret witnesses undermines justice, accusing it of producing a detrimental political atmosphere. "The ongoing investigations are empty, full of fabricated questions that exceed moral boundaries," İmamoğlu asserted, projecting a deep concern about the implications of such a climate for Turkish society.
As this unprecedented investigation unfolds, the public remains divided. While supporters rally behind İmamoğlu, arguing that this is yet another instance of political repression, critics maintain that he must face the allegations head-on in pursuit of justice. This complex web of legal and political maneuvering continues to resonate deeply within Turkey's contentious political landscape, likely influencing the upcoming elections and the broader electoral climate.
The political drama surrounding İmamoğlu exemplifies the intricate relationship between governance and the legal system in Turkey, raising questions about the integrity of political processes amid strategies perceived as tools for discrediting opponents. Only time will tell how this situation evolves and what impact it will have on İmamoğlu's future and the overall political dynamics in Istanbul and beyond.
