Executive Summary:

Mayor of Istanbul and President of the Union of Municipalities of Türkiye, Mr. Ekrem İmamoğlu, was arrested on March 23, 2025, hours before his party’s open primary nominated him as the presidential candidate. İmamoğlu faces a series of criminal charges—including aiding terrorism and financial misconduct—which mostly hinge on secret witnesses and baseless allegations.

SINCE HIS 2019 ELECTION WIN, WHICH ENDED PRESIDENT ERDOĞAN’S DECADES-LONG CONTROL IN ISTANBUL, İMAMOĞLU HAS FACED OVER 90 INVESTIGATIONS, WHICH APPEAR TO BE A CONCERTED CAMPAIGN TO REMOVE HIM FROM THE POLITICAL SCENE.

The cases reveal systemic weaknesses in Türkiye’s judiciary. Judges have been arbitrarily reassigned, prosecutors with conflicts of interest are leading investigations, and İmamoğlu’s legal team has been denied access to key documents. His “Fool Case' conviction—over a political remark—resulted in a harsh prison sentence and could lead to a political ban, if upheld by higher courts. The irregularities and the volume of cases suggest the judicial process is being used to block political opposition, raising serious concerns for the rule of law and electoral democracy in Türkiye. This is not only a legal case but a defining moment for Türkiye’s democratic trajectory.

Introduction

Ekrem İmamoğlu, the elected Mayor of the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality (İBB) and the presidential candidate of the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP), was arrested on March 23 based on allegations of financial crimes. This was preceded by an escalating series of judicial actions that threatened to remove him from political life.

His landslide victory in the 2019 municipal elections which ended President Erdoğan’s 25-year hold on Istanbul, his ability to be re-elected in 2024 local elections with an even higher voter support and his possible presidential candidacy in the next elections increasingly made him a target of systematic judicial harassment by the government.

On March 19, Mr. İmamoğlu was detained by hundreds of police offcers who surrounded his home. His detention was based on two allegations: financial wrongdoings, which included bid-rigging, bribery and leading a criminal organization; and aiding terrorism.

He was formally arrested four days later on charges related to financial crimes. The timing of the arrest—on the same day as CHP’s open primaries, where 15.5 million people voted to elect him as presidential candidate—raises serious concerns about the use of legal mechanisms to interfere in democratic political competition.

What follows is a legal review of the charges against him, the erosion of judicial independence, and the growing pattern of harassment that now extends to dozens of municipal offcials, business people, journalists and critics.

What Are the Recent Charges Against Ekrem İmamoğlu?

On March 23, the on-duty Magistrate's Court decided that, within the scope of investigations conducted by the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office, Mr. İmamoğlu would be remanded in custody on charges of establishing and leading a criminal organisation, accepting bribes, misconduct in office, unlawfully recording personal data, and bid rigging.

The court deemed it “unnecessary” to decide on terrorism-related charges “at this stage,” as he has already been remanded in custody for financial crimes. Therefore, the request to arrest Mr. İmamoğlu on terror-related charges has been refused.

Below is a detailed explanation of the two charges that led to the detention of Mr. İmamoğlu:

Aiding a terrorist organization under Article 314/3 of the Turkish Penal Code (TPC): The charge stems from what prosecutors describe as “urban compromise,” whereby 18 individuals affiliated with the People’s Democratic Congress (HDK), a platform said to be close to the outlawed PKK, were allegedly included on CHP municipal council candidate lists. Yet all candidates were approved by Türkiye’s Supreme Election Council (YSK), which is constitutionally responsible for disqualifying ineligible candidates, including those convicted of terrorism-related offenses. No such disqualifications occurred prior to the local elections.

Financial crimes that include forming a criminal organization (Article 220), bribery (Article 252), collusive tendering (Article 235), fraudulent non-performance (Article 236), extortion (Article 250), and aggravated fraud (Article 158/1-e).

These charges relate to tenders carried out by the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality’s subsidiaries, including Medya A.Ş., Kültür

A.Ş., Kiptaş, İsfalt, and Bimtaş. The allegations are unfounded and based on the testimonies of anonymous and questionable secret witnesses.  Moreover, under public procurement law, the mayor does not hold signature authority over tenders, nor is there any indication in publicly known documents that Mr. İmamoğlu personally intervened or benefited from these transactions.

His arrest on those charges contradicts multiple expert reports, including that of the Financial Crimes Investigation Board (MASAK), which found no evidence of wrongdoing. The current financial case cannot be viewed in isolation. Since 2019, the Court of Accounts has audited IBB more than 1,300 times—seven times more than the previous administration under a mayor from President Erdoğan’s Justice and Development Party—without revealing any material findings. On the other hand, the investigations that Mr. İmamoğlu requested to be launched regarding the previous administration were obstructed by the Court of Accounts, the Interior Ministry and other institutions.

In parallel, 51 individuals from Mr. İmamoğlu’s administration and political circle have also been detained, including deputy mayors, directors of municipal companies, campaign staff, and district mayors from Şişli and Beylikdüzü. No charges have been brought against some of the individuals who were arrested. These sweeping arrests suggest a broader operation targeting Mr. İmamoğlu and the political and administrative infrastructure around him. A second wave of detentions, targeting more than 50 people including his chef de cabinet, his brother-in-law, and the wife of his media advisor, took place on April 26, indicating that the families of the charged were also targeted. 18 of these individuals have been remanded in custody. Some were put in house arrest.

To offer just one striking example of how arbitrary these detentions are: the widely respected General Manager of Istanbul’s water authority (İSKİ), known for fighting to protect the city’s scarce water resources, was detained because a mining operator, who had been denied a license by İSKİ, filed a complaint. The same man had previously threatened the General Manager to the point that prosecutors assigned him a security detail. Yet, despite the history of threats, the authorities acted on the complainant’s accusation, detaining the İSKİ General Manager.

Both files against Mr. İmamoğlu are subject to confidentiality restrictions, which severely limit access by Mr. İmamoğlu’s legal defense team. These confidential case files are effectively being leaked to pro-government media and websites and used for defamation of the suspects. The main allegations are based on statements from certain secret witnesses, who offer hearsay. Yet, arrest decisions have been issued without any indictment or publicly available evidence.

Moreover, arresting an elected mayor who poses no risk of flight and would appear before the authorities when summoned, without a judicial ruling against him, is contrary to general principles of law and the Turkish Criminal Law. Erdoğan himself, who was trialed for the same kind of offenses during his term as Mayor of Istanbul, was not arrested pending trial.

Will Mr. Imamoğlu Get a Fair Trial?

The prospect of a fair trial in Mr. İmamoğlu’s case is gravely diminished by Türkiye’s ongoing erosion of judicial independence. Since the 2010 and 2017 constitutional amendments, the judiciary has undergone significant changes, allowing for greater political influence over the legal system.

After the unsuccessful coup attempt in 2016, more than 4,000 judges and prosecutors were dismissed. In the nine years that followed, approximately 20,000 new appointments were made. Turkish and international legal observers believe that these appointments were driven not by merit, but by loyalty, which allowed the ruling party to create its own judiciary. The Council of Judges and Prosecutors (HSK) is now widely seen as susceptible to the influence of the executive branch of the government through arbitrary transfers and appointments, disciplinary actions, and pressures on defense lawyers and bar associations.

The “Criminal Judgeships of Peace” (Sulh Ceza Hakimlikleri) created in 2014, concentrated broad powers in a limited number of judges, who functioned without sufficient safeguards and served as instruments of the government’s influence in politically sensitive cases.

These structural weaknesses became evident in handling Mr. İmamoğlu’s legal files. Prosecutors have repeatedly launched investigations within hours of public remarks critical of judicial figures, as if on cue. In one case, Mr. İmamoğlu questioned the impartiality of a court expert who was repeatedly assigned to cases involving CHP-led municipalities. Within fifteen minutes of his remarks, prosecutors opened a new investigation against him for “attempting to influence judicial officials,” under Articles 277 and 288 of the Penal Code.

Other violations of judicial independence and fair trial norms include the arbitrary reassignment of judges. In the widely cited “YSK case,” also known as the “Fool Case,” which resulted in Mr. İmamoğlu’s conviction for insulting public officials, the judge was transferred arbitrarily. According to multiple reports, he had resisted pressure to impose the maximum sentence without suspension.

In another ongoing case, Istanbul’s Chief Public Prosecutor acts as both the complainant and the hierarchical authority instructing the prosecutors conducting the investigation. This constitutes an apparent conflict of interest and undermines the impartiality of the judicial process.

Confidentiality orders have repeatedly been used to prevent Mr. İmamoğlu’s lawyers from accessing crucial documents. For example, in the financial crimes file, even the core allegations remain inaccessible to the defense. Moreover, Mr. İmamoğlu’s legal counsel has faced pressure of their own: Lawyer Mehmet Pehlivan and his lawyer were briefly detained under baseless charges, raising concerns about interference with the right to legal defense.

International legal bodies have repeatedly warned of these shortcomings. The European Court of Human Rights has found Türkiye violating Article 6 (right to a fair trial) and Article 18 (misuse of legal restrictions for political ends) in various cases. The same articles of the Penal Code—125 (insult) and 314 (terrorism-related offenses)—are now central to the prosecution of Mr. İmamoğlu.

Given the extent of these institutional deficiencies and the pattern of retaliatory legal action, it is hard to conclude that Mr. İmamoğlu’s trial will meet either Turkish constitutional standards or the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights. Despite this backdrop, his legal team will exhaust all domestic legal means and, if necessary, appeal to international legal mechanisms, including the European Court of Human Rights.

What Are the Other Charges and Investigations?

Beyond the current charges that led to his arrest, Mr. İmamoğlu faces numerous judicial and administrative cases. The most notable among them is the sudden revocation of his university diploma after more than 30 years. The university confirmed the validity of the diploma in question in 2020 and reiterated it in an information note issued by the university rectorate on October 7, 2024.

The revocation occurred on March 18, 2025, just days before CHP’s presidential primaries, where Mr. İmamoğlu was to be voted in as the presidential candidate. Under Article 101 of the Constitution, candidates must hold a university degree. The timing and reversal of the university’s prior position declaring the diploma as valid strongly suggest political interference.

In the “YSK Case,” Mr. İmamoğlu was sentenced to two years, seven months, and fifteen days in prison under Article 125/3 of the Penal Code. The sentence was based on a political exchange with the then-Interior Minister Süleyman Soylu, who had called Mr. İmamoğlu “a fool.” In response, Mr. İmamoğlu stated, “The real fools are those who annulled the 2019 elections” to highlight that the decision had been made through political interference. This was interpreted as insulting the Higher Election Council (YSK) judges. The punishment, far exceeding penalties typically handed down for similar cases, has been widely criticized as politically motivated. If upheld, it would result in a ban on politics.

Numerous other investigations have been launched, but their legal merit is questionable. These include:

  • A bid-rigging investigation related to a 2015 tender conducted during Mr. İmamoğlu’s term as Mayor of Beylikdüzü. Although expert reports found no irregularities and the case has reached the decision stage, the judge has not issued a verdict, and the proceedings are being deliberately stalled.
  • President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan filed two lawsuits against Mr. İmamoğlu for damages.
  • An investigation was launched on the grounds that İmamoğlu allegedly threatened members of the judiciary. This claim stems from criticisms he directed at the Istanbul Chief Prosecutor during a seminar (mentioned above).
  • A criminal case, resulting in acquittal, was filed when Mr. İmamoğlu said in 2019 that he would “hold [him] accountable through legal means,” referring to Serhat Albayrak, brother of then–Finance Minister Berat Albayrak and owner of one of Türkiye’s largest media conglomerates.
  • A criminal case, resulting in acquittal, was brought following a complaint by the AK Party mayor of Tuzla, who claimed İmamoğlu had insulted him.
  • A criminal case, resulting in a fine, was filed based on a complaint by the governor of Ordu, who claimed he was insulted during the 2019 local election campaign. During the campaign, President Erdoğan used this incident to argue that İmamoğlu’s mayoral term would be annulled if he won.
  • Bilal Erdoğan filed a compensation lawsuit after İmamoğlu criticized the delay of Friday prayers to accommodate him. Although the file contained no evidence supporting the plaintiff, and the defendant submitted multiple pieces of evidence, the case was still accepted.
  • Four separate compensation lawsuits were filed by Adil Karaismailoğlu, who served at the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality before Mr. İmamoğlu’s term and later became the transport minister. All cases concern criticisms of Karaismailoğlu’s actions during his tenure at the municipality, subject to ongoing investigations.
  • Several compensation lawsuits were filed against İmamoğlu due to his criticism of the government, including by the Erdoğan family’s foundation TÜRGEV, the Anadolu Agency, and the AK Party Mayor of Ümraniye.
  • Baseless and minor allegations, such as overcrowding on buses during COVID-19, misuse of public data, and allegedly "kicking" the tomb of Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror.

Since 2019, Mr. İmamoğlu has faced over 90 investigations. The timing of these cases, often following public speeches, underscores their strategic use.

Procedural irregularities—including the use of fabricated documents, sudden transfers of prosecutors and judges, and delays in verdicts—further suggest that judicial processes are being used as a tool of political containment.

In addition to İmamoğlu, investigations have been launched against individuals and groups from various segments of society, including journalists, artists, and students, who have drawn attention to the procedural violations and injustices in these cases.

Conclusion

The legal campaign against Ekrem İmamoğlu represents a clear and ongoing example of what international law refers to as “judicial harassment”—using legal processes not for justice, but for political exclusion. The accumulation of unsubstantiated cases, the irregularities in judicial handling, and the timing of key actions suggest a coordinated strategy to remove Mr. İmamoğlu from political life before the next presidential election scheduled for 2028.

As the European Court of Human Rights has previously concluded, such tactics violate the fundamental principles of pluralism, free political competition, and the rule of law. The implications of Mr. İmamoğlu’s prosecution extend well beyond the individual. Where legal systems are manipulated to determine who may run for office, the most fundamental foundation of electoral democracy is gravely endangered.