Ahmet Özer, defendant in the Aziz İhsan Aktaş criminal organization case, presents his defense

On Tuesday, January 27, 200 defendants appeared in court for the first time as part of an indictment prepared regarding allegations of organizing tender processes by bribing mayors. The defendants include Beşiktaş Mayor Rıza Akpolat, Avcılar Mayor Utku Caner Çaykara, Seyhan Mayor Oya Tekin, and Ceyhan Mayor Kadir Aydar, who were removed from their posts following their arrests; Adana Metropolitan Mayor Zeydan Karalar, who was released; and Adıyaman Mayor Abdurrahman Tutdere, who was released and reinstated to his post. The criminal organization is allegedly led by Aziz İhsan Aktaş.

Aziz İhsan Aktaş will present his defense for the first time this week

As the trial continues into its 3rd week, the defense statements of the non-detained defendants began yesterday. In yesterday's hearing, the defense statements of 16 defendants were completed. In the ongoing hearing this week, the defense statements of a total of 167 non-detained defendants are being taken, primarily including Aziz İhsan Aktaş, who is described as the leader of the organization, faces 187 to 450 years in prison in the indictment, and was released on June 4, 2025, under effective remorse provisions.

During the hearing, Ali Haydar Topçu, the non-detained former IETT Accounting Manager who was removed from office and is accused in the indictment of rigging tenders, presented his defense. Topçu stated in his defense, "There is no irregularity in any tender I was involved in. All tenders were carried out in accordance with the procedure."

"The matter clearly stated in the reports is that there is no finding of tender rigging"

Ahmet Özer, who was removed from his post as Esenyurt Mayor and released on November 11, 2025, presented his defense. Rejecting the allegations of rigging tenders, Özer said, "All of Esenyurt knows that I would not rig a tender. I did not harm the municipality. I know neither tenders nor how to rig them. Positions are temporary. I came to leave a mark. I did not come to spend the most important times of my life on such matters. Before becoming mayor, I had never seen the inside of a courtroom. I was arrested on an empty and baseless file. Scientific examination and audit reports state that there is a suspicion of 'tender rigging' against me. In which scientific examination report is there such a finding? There are two expert examination reports in the file. None of these reports contain a single finding or evaluation regarding the crime of 'tender rigging.' Despite this, it is incomprehensible that proceedings are being conducted under this heading. None of the reports prepared regarding the allegations include any findings related to the claim of tender rigging. If there were such a suspicion, it would be clearly stated in the reports. Because the duty of experts is to write the matters they detect in the report. If it is not written, it does not exist. On the contrary, the matter clearly stated in the reports is that there is no finding of tender rigging. At most, administrative evaluations regarding the duty of supervision have been made. This does not constitute a crime in terms of criminal law."

"Something that does not exist in law cannot be accepted as if it does"

Continuing his defense, defendant Özer argued that there was no criminal accusation in the prepared reports, stating, "Throughout my life, I have performed public duty with the highest level of responsibility. I have undertaken inspectorship and audit duties. I have worked on hundreds of files, and the reports I prepared were submitted to the relevant institutions. To date, there has been no finalized criminal accusation regarding my duty. Furthermore, all the cases opened regarding the files I previously worked on have passed through judicial review and have been legally concluded. The prepared reports were evaluated by judicial authorities, and no situation contrary to the law was detected. At the point reached today, trying to show a crime that does not exist in the reports prepared by experts in their fields who have worked in different institutions as if it exists is an extremely grave and unjust situation. Something that does not exist in law cannot be accepted as if it does. If there is a finding of a crime, it is in the report; if not, it is not. There is no concrete, technical, or legal finding in the file regarding the crime of 'tender rigging.' Despite this, evaluating it as if it exists is unacceptable both legally and conscientiously. None of the witnesses heard here have said that I interfered in tenders or rigged a tender. On the contrary, in the presence of the lawyers here, I asked each of them this question clearly and explicitly: 'Did Mayor Ahmet Özer exert any pressure, suggestion, or direction on you during the tender process for the tender to be given to someone?' I asked. All of them stated one by one, clearly, that he did not. All witness accounts in the file clearly reveal that I did not exert any pressure, suggestion, or direction. Despite this, claiming that such a situation exists is completely contrary to the truth and is strictly denied by me. Various allegations have been made against me since 2015, and my choosing the people I would work with after taking office has been portrayed as a crime, and an attempt has been made to create a negative perception about me. However, every mayor has the authority to choose the staff they will work with, both legally and administratively. This is not a crime; it is a requirement of the duty. Presenting this situation as if it were illegal is not correct. Contrary to what is alleged, there is no special direction or privilege belonging to me in the planning of the tenders in question. The process was carried out entirely within the framework of tender legislation and service needs."

"I got to know Aktaş during the prison process, after the file became public"

Continuing his defense, Özer said, "Unfortunately, an attempt has been made in the file to create a generalizing and heavy perception as if all mayors were involved in bribery and irregularity. However, there is no concrete bribery, concrete procurement of benefit, or illegal transaction. Accusations such as tender rigging and the like are being put forward. Therefore, it is not legally possible for the responsibility regarding a tender that has not actually started to be imposed on me. The prosecution could not present any concrete evidence in the indictment that I and the public officials I worked with were connected to bribery. Only assumption-based evaluations were made in this direction. Today, the allegations against me are based on assumptions and interpretations, not concrete evidence. For this reason, I request that the file be evaluated within the framework of witness statements, expert reports, and concrete evidence, and that the accusations against me be handled in light of these facts. An indictment was prepared by writing non-existent evidence as if it existed, and we have been victimized. We held a tender, but we did not start it. We did not make any progress payments; I did not make a single cent of payment. The administration that held the tender is the trustee management. The one who pays the money is also them. If the tender was rigged, then the trustee should be here. The prosecution's allegations are baseless. The parts attributed to me in the indictment are hearsay. The people who tell such things about me are secret witnesses."

Also presenting his defense regarding his meetings with Aziz İhsan Aktaş, defendant Özer said, "I would also like to clarify a matter regarding Aziz İhsan Aktaş. He claims he came to visit me to congratulate me after I took office. I got to know Aktaş during the prison process, after the file became public. I have had no prior relationship, commercial connection, or contact with him. As an administrator who comes into contact with hundreds of people in the intense pace of duty, it is out of the question for me to have a special relationship with him. While the prosecution accepts Aziz İhsan Aktaş's statements as true on some issues, it does not accept the part related to me. This is a clear contradiction," he said.

In the hearing, Esenyurt Municipality personnel and non-detained defendant Mustafa Seymen is presenting his defense.