The court president immediately intervened regarding İmamoğlu's statements about Kılıçdaroğlu.

11.06.2026 17:30

The courtroom tension escalated during the 49th hearing of Ekrem İmamoğlu's case. When İmamoğlu said, 'Likewise, I condemn the person who appointed a trustee to the head of the main opposition party. I also condemn the person at the head of the government,' the presiding judge immediately intervened. The judge stated, 'Make your personal comments elsewhere.'

The 49th session of the first hearing of the 'Ekrem Imamoglu Organized Crime for Profit' case continued at the courtroom located in the Marmara Penal Execution Institutions Campus before the Istanbul 40th Heavy Penal Court. In the hearing, detained defendant Elif Guven, Media A. S. Advertising Manager, made her defense. In the evaluation made in the indictment regarding Guven, it was stated that she acted together with Murat Ongun and Emrah Bagdatli, took an active role in tender processes, and carried out irregular tender processes in line with the instructions she received from organization manager Ongun and Emrah Bagdatli. The indictment also reported that Guven played a role in issuing false invoices on behalf of the institution, determined which tender would be given to whom, prepared its infrastructure, and took part in the Media A. S. structure of the organization.

"MY BEING ABROAD WHEN THE DETENTION WARRANT WAS ISSUED WAS A COINCIDENCE"

Detained defendant Elif Guven said, "On March 19, during the dawn operation, many people, including Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality President Ekrem Imamoglu and my unit managers, were detained from their homes. I was on annual leave. I had gone with my mother to see my niece who is studying in Italy. I woke up to my phone ringing at 5 AM and was informed that there was a detention warrant for me. I looked on social media and learned about the situation from there. I had a return ticket to Turkiye for the evening of March 19. My mother fell ill upon hearing the news. We had to take care of her, and because of this, I missed the flight. Then we pulled ourselves together and returned to Turkiye with my mother on the first plane arriving in Turkiye. My being abroad when the detention warrant was issued was a coincidence. Frankly, I didn't think there was any crime I had committed that would warrant concern, and I still don't think so."

"WE DO NOT GIVE TENDERS TO ANYONE THROUGH FABRICATION"

Continuing her defense, Guven said, "When I looked at the arrest warrant, it cited a flight risk. As a person who got on a plane and surrendered immediately upon learning about the detention warrant while abroad, whose address is known, who has never committed a crime in their life, how was I arrested on suspicion of flight? Contrary to what is written about me in the indictment, I started working at IBB Media A. S. not as a so-called organization member, but entirely based on my past experience. In the indictment, supposedly we fabricated something and gave a tender to someone. We do not give tenders to anyone through fabrication. The so-called expert reports in the main case file are fabrications. As stated in the indictment, I neither know nor accept the claim that Ekrem Imamoglu leads a criminal organization. He was the President of the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality. We never rigged tenders to provide funds for the claim of Ekrem Imamoglu's criminal organization, nor did we cause public loss. I did not see or hear of bags full of money."

Detained defendant Guven, who said she also wanted to make a statement about the second statement taken by the prosecutor's office, spoke as follows: "I was sitting in my cell on the 20th day of my detention. An officer came and said, 'Elif, get ready, we are taking you to the doctor.' I thought I was going to the infirmary. Then they said, 'You are going outside.' Just as we were about to get into the vehicle in the corridor, we were handcuffed, and they said, 'You are going to the prosecutor.' I was surprised; at that moment, I didn't know what to answer. I was put into a prison vehicle and taken to the Caglayan Courthouse. They had informed my lawyer at the time. I met my lawyer there. My lawyer conveyed to me that the prosecutor said, 'We wouldn't write this indictment for another 2.5 years; let her come and tell what she knows.' I told my lawyer, 'I don't know anything; I told what I know to the law enforcement.' I entered the prosecutor's room with my lawyer. Then the prosecutor said to me, 'We will help you.' I was thinking, I was confused. I told him everything I have explained here. I said I would not become a confessor, that I had already told what I know. I am explaining, but he says, 'You are still talking as you wish.' Honestly, I don't know how to speak either. The prosecutor says, 'Pinar was brought by Emrah Bagdatli,' I say, 'I don't know,' 'Did you hear?' 'I didn't,' Then the question comes, 'Did you feel it?' I mean, I can't understand how things work based on feelings either. He was not pleased with me. He started scolding me constantly like that. He openly said to my face, 'He is not talking as I wish; let him stay inside.'"

"I DID NOT BENEFIT FROM ACTIVE REMORSE"

Detained defendant Guven, who said she spoke with her lawyer after leaving the prosecutor's room, stated, "I said, 'Why didn't you have my words recorded properly? Why didn't you object?' He didn't answer. Due to his inadequacy during the statement-taking session, I immediately dismissed him. I want to emphasize, I did not benefit from active remorse. The indictment claims that I received instructions from Murat Ongun and Emrah Bagdatli. Murat Ongun is a manager; of course, if he says something, we evaluate and look into it, but who is Emrah Bagdatli? I know Emrah Bagdatli, but why would I take instructions from him? He has no position at Media A. S. for him to come to me and say, 'Elif, do this'."

"THE WILL THAT CORRECTED THAT WOULD ALSO CORRECT THAT SECTION"

Then the cross-examination of the defendant began. The presiding judge read some parts from the statement of detained defendant Elif Guven. After Guven answered the read parts with "correct," the presiding judge asked, "For instance, how do these statements get recorded correctly here, while others get recorded incorrectly?" Detained defendant Guven said, "Because I was able to have some of them corrected." The presiding judge then said, "For instance, in the sentence above, there is a sentence regarding Fatos Pinar Turker. 'She was brought to Media A. S. by Emrah Bagdatli,' you said that is not true." Guven replied, "Yes, it's not." Following this, the presiding judge posed the question, "For instance, why didn't you have this part corrected? The will that corrected that would also correct that section." The defendant answered the question, "Yes, you are very right, but as I said, I also mentioned the active remorse there to you." The presiding judge then asked, "After dismissing your lawyer, did you send any petition stating that the statements in your testimony are not yours, do not reflect the truth, and are against your will?" The defendant answered the question, "I spoke with my lawyer, but he told me, 'Don't submit a petition right now; we might hit a wall; come out and explain this yourself during your defense'."

The prosecutor asked defendant Guven, "Did Emrah Bagdatli frequently come to Media A. S.?" The defendant answered the question, "I didn't see him frequently at Media A. S. He would come to event areas." To the prosecutor's question, "Did you hold a meeting with Emrah Bagdatli at Media A. S.?" Guven replied, "No, I did not."

PRESIDING JUDGE TO IMAMOGLU: MAKE YOUR OWN COMMENTS IN OTHER CHANNELS

Then, given the floor, detained defendant Ekrem Imamoglu asked defendant Guven, "I know you by sight, but did we ever hold a meeting with you?" Defendant Guven replied, "No, Mr. President. We would encounter each other at events and talk there." Continuing his speech, Ekrem Imamoglu said, "I believe none of these actions have any legal or administrative basis. I also condemn the ministers who didn't even lift a finger after this was announced so publicly, knowing they cannot lift a finger."

Then, when the detained defendant Aykut Erdoğdu, who was given the floor, requested the right to ask a question but did not ask one, the chief judge issued a warning. Aykut Erdoğdu said, “Please do not obstruct our right to defense.” In response, the chief judge said, “No other case has progressed this slowly. You keep talking about the right to defense. We haven’t set any time limits or anything. There’s no need to engage in polemics.”