Buğra Gökce responds to accusations in the indictment

Istanbul Planning Agency President Buğra Gökce made statements from Marmara Prison in Silivri regarding the accusations contained in the indictment prepared as part of the IMM case. In a post on his social media account, Gökce stated that the indictment does not contain any concrete evidence to support the accusations against him.

Gökce emphasized that "it is not possible to characterize actions taken as part of the nature of a public duty as 'organizational activity'," and stressed that there was no irregular increase in his assets in the indictment and that he did not enter into any conflict of interest. He also stated that no suspicious situation was detected in MASAK reports or other financial examinations.

?? Masumiyet karinesine; adil yargılanma hakkına ve savunma makamının soruşturma sürecine eşit şekilde katılma ilkesine uygun davranılmasını, somut delile dayanmayan, mesnetten yoksun tüm suçlamaların düşürülerek, haksız tutukluluğuma ivedilikle son verilmesini bekliyoruz.…

— Doç. Dr. Buğra Gökce (@gokcebugra) December 1, 2025

INCONSISTENCIES IN THE INDICTMENT

Gökce stated that four of the accusations of bid-rigging directed at him in the indictment belong to periods when he was not in office. He argued that this shows the indictment is inconsistent within itself. He also expressed that it is not against the law for municipal companies to receive tenders and that he had no responsibility in these processes.

Gökce stated that the allegation of membership in an organization is based on abstract interpretations and that there is no concrete evidence in the indictment. He expressed that professional contacts carried out within the framework of public duty are being attempted to be portrayed as membership in a non-existent organization.

In conclusion, Gökce argued that the indictment does not contain any concrete evidence to support the accusations against him and that the presumption of innocence has been violated.

The full text of Gökce's statement is as follows:

''My detention trial has been ongoing for 8.5 months. I have examined the indictment under the circumstances. I would like to respond to the allegations directed at me and inform the public.

''A GRAVE VIOLATION''

I went to the police units of my own volition. During the detention and pre-trial detention process, accusations of “bribery” and “membership in a criminal organization” were directed at me. For 8.5 months, no concrete act or evidence regarding these accusations has been shown. There is no doubt that the disclosure of the indictment to the entire country while my access to investigation documents is restricted is a grave violation in terms of the right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence.

In the approximately four-thousand-page indictment, there is no allegation regarding the crime of 'bribery', which is the fundamental reason for my detention for eight and a half months. In MASAK reports and other financial examinations, no increase in my assets, suspicious money movement, secret/open witness testimony, or irregular income has been detected. It is stated in the indictment itself that the two residences I own were acquired through 30 years of savings and bank loans. Thus, it has been revealed with official documents that I have not obtained a single penny of unfair gain.

Regarding four of the 12 acts of bid-rigging directed at me in the indictment, it can be easily determined that I was not in office on the dates alleged. Two of these coincide with the period I served as Secretary General of the Izmir Metropolitan Municipality in 2020, and the other two coincide with the period after I resigned from the IMM in November 2023. These allegations regarding places and time periods when I was not actually in office show that the indictment is not even consistent within itself.

The allegations regarding the period I served relate to tenders received by Municipal Companies for the operation of municipal facilities and the provision of certain services, which were won by IMM subsidiaries and of which there are many examples during the AKP period as well.

My duty in these tenders was not to be on the technical commissions that determined the estimated price or prepared the specifications, but rather, in my capacity as Deputy Secretary General, to refer the prepared documents to the council and to check whether the process was proceeding in accordance with the legislation. Therefore, I do not have any action that could constitute the material elements of the crime of “bid-rigging”.

''MY RESPONSIBILITY CANNOT BE IN QUESTION''

It is not against the law for municipal companies to receive tenders. As a matter of fact, all of the individuals who served in the IMM in previous periods and most of whom assumed ministerial responsibilities in AKP governments were authorized signatories in such tender processes. Since I have no connection with the processes of the company winning the tender entering into contracts with subcontractors or the performance of the obligations undertaken with these contracts, I cannot be accused of any fraudulent behavior and/or my responsibility cannot be in question.

I would like to state that the investigation permit previously granted regarding tenders for advertising media was canceled by the 1st Chamber of the Council of State, and it was clearly stated in this decision that determining the estimated price is a job that requires expertise and is done by separate commissions, and that the deputy secretary general cannot be held responsible for this work. It is not possible to ignore this decision.

The allegation of membership in an organization is essentially based on abstract interpretations derived from HTS and signal records. Because, in the indictment, it has not been concretely shown that I was involved in any instruction relationship, benefit provision, or money traffic within the scope of any organizational hierarchy. Only professional contacts carried out within the framework of public duty and business relationships that are mandatory to fulfill the requirements of the duty are being attempted to be portrayed in an unfounded manner as 'membership in a non-existent organization'.

It is not possible to criminalize actions taken as part of the nature of a public duty by characterizing them as “organizational activity”.

In conclusion: the indictment in question documents that there was no irregular increase in my assets, that I did not enter into any material or political conflict of interest, and that there is no concrete act that could form the basis for membership in an organization or the crime of bid-rigging.''