13.11.2026 15:52
The statement that Ekrem İmamoğlu gave in the investigation launched against him because of his book titled 'The Nation Is My Witness' has been revealed. İmamoğlu, who gave his statement via SEGBİS, stated that the book consists of the transcript of the interrogation that he claimed could not be conducted, and said, 'There is not even a single word in the book that would disturb public peace.' Saying that 74 separate offenses were attributed to him, İmamoğlu did not accept the accusations.
Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office launched an investigation due to statements in Ekrem İmamoğlu’s book titled “The Nation Is My Witness.” Details of the statement İmamoğlu gave within the scope of the investigation have emerged.
INVESTIGATION FOR THE OFFENSE OF “PUBLICLY DENIGRATING”
The investigation conducted by the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office was launched on the charge of “publicly denigrating the State of the Republic of Turkey, the Government of the Republic of Turkey, and the judicial organs of the State” due to statements in the book. İmamoğlu gave his statement via the Audio and Visual Information System (SEGBİS).
“I DECIDED TO PUBLISH AS A BOOK THE QUESTIONING I WAS UNABLE TO GIVE”
In his statement, İmamoğlu argued that the investigation and the permission granted by the Ministry of Justice were “far from serious,” and claimed that at the hearing he attended on July 8, 2026, to give his statement, his procedural objections were cut off by the presiding judge. İmamoğlu alleged that the presiding judge kept a record to the effect that “I will not make a defense” and removed him from the courtroom.
İmamoğlu said, “I never had a sentence such as ‘I will not make a defense.’ This sentence is not true. Thereupon, I decided to publish as a book the questioning I was unable to give. The subject of the case before us is this questioning text.”
“THERE IS NO COURT ORDER, BUT THE PRINTING HOUSE STOPPED THE PRINTING”
İmamoğlu explained that they had agreed with a publishing house for the printing of the book, and that the publishing house had made the necessary application and obtained the banderoles. He claimed that during printing, police came to the printing house. İmamoğlu spoke as follows:
“Just as printing began, word came; the police had arrived and given the instruction, ‘You wait.’ There is no court order, but the printing house, justifiably, stopped the printing to avoid confronting the state. A prohibition order had come to the printing house. While the police were supposedly patrolling their own district, on the very day my book began to be printed, they received information that an irregular and unbanderoled book was being printed.”
“22 THOUSAND BANDEROLES FOUND”
Arguing that it was unclear how the police obtained this information, İmamoğlu claimed that despite the allegation of an unbanderoled book, the prosecutor of the Terror and Organized Crimes Investigation Bureau was called, while the Intellectual and Industrial Rights Investigation Bureau was not. İmamoğlu said, “At the printing house, the police found exactly 22,000 banderoles belonging to my book that had been legally obtained but could not be printed.”
“INSULT CANNOT BE A REASON FOR BANNING A BOOK”
Stating that, under the laws, a limited number of crimes are listed for a book’s sale to be banned, İmamoğlu said the following:
“No type of insult is among them. Insulting the President, public officials, or the government cannot be grounds for having a book banned. These are not in my book anyway, but even if they were, they would not be a reason for banning. Only the crime of inciting the public to hatred and hostility is a provision that can serve as a basis for banning a book. There is not even a single word in the book that would disturb public peace.”
“I ABSOLUTELY DO NOT ACCEPT THE ACCUSATION”
Noting that 74 separate crimes were attributed to him based on sentences taken from the book, İmamoğlu said, “Today, now, 74 separate crimes are being attributed to me based on sentences plucked out of an unprinted book. I absolutely do not accept the accusation. I hope that you, as a prosecutor, will succeed in returning to law and conscience in this case.”