06.11.2026 17:11
Deniz Aksoy, the lawyer of detained Çankaya Mayor Hüseyin Can Güner, stating that the decision regarding Fatma Betül Sayan Kaya, who was arrested in the fund investigation, is severe in terms of enforcement law and the principle of proportionality, said, "The arrest of Fatma Betül Sayan Kaya is not right. Judicial control is sufficient for this offense. Considering that the penalty will be reduced by half if the damage is compensated, the arrest has been severe in terms of enforcement law. I do not accept the lawyers' defense of this arrest."
Lawyer Deniz Aksoy of Hüseyin Can Güner, the New Party's Çankaya Mayor who was arrested and suspended from duty, made a striking statement about Fatma Betül Sayan Kaya, who was arrested within the scope of a fund investigation.
"HER ARREST IS NOT RIGHT"
Deniz Aksoy said, "The arrest of Fatma Betül Sayan Kaya is not right," and included the following statements: "Her act is a crime. She absolutely must be tried. There is no defensible aspect of it morally or politically. But if we defend the arrest decision for a crime whose penalty is 3/5 years, we pave the way for all unjust arrests. Judicial control is sufficient for this crime. The detention measure is not applied to quell the public's reaction. Considering that the penalty will be reduced by half if the damage is compensated, the arrest has been severe from the perspective of execution law. I do not accept lawyers' defense of this arrest. Of course, the citizens have been pleased."
MADE A STATEMENT AFTER THE REACTIONS
After their initial assessments, following the reactions rising in public opinion, Lawyer Deniz Aksoy published a written statement. Stating in their statements that their legal assessments had been taken out of context, Aksoy reported that their stance was clear.
In the text Aksoy published, they included the following statements: "Due to the statements directed at me in public opinion and that, by taking my legal assessments out of context, carry them to different meanings, the need to make this statement has arisen.
In the incident in question, my stance is clear that the act constitutes a crime, that there is no defensible aspect to it, and that the perpetrator must account before the law. I have no hesitation or different assessment on this matter. However, what I emphasize with the responsibility of a legal professional is this: Arrest is not a method of punishment or a tool for appeasing social reactions; it is an exceptional protective measure that may be resorted to when its legal conditions are met.
"JUDICIAL MEASURE WOULD HAVE BEEN SUFFICIENT"
When the fundamental principles of criminal procedure law, the principle of proportionality, and the nature of the prescribed sanction are evaluated together, I maintain my legal opinion that judicial control measures would be sufficient for the incident in question. I do not accept that my legal and principled assessments are taken out of context and made the subject of political labeling. Opposing the disproportionate use of the arrest measure does not mean defending a crime or an unlawful act.
"I REJECT IT BEING DISTORTED INTO DIFFERENT MEANINGS"
On the contrary, this approach is to defend that justice, the rule of law, and procedural safeguards function equally for everyone. I reject my legal views being distorted into different meanings and myself being placed into political categories through these views, and I leave the assessment to the public's discretion."