Day 6 of the IMM trial begins: New statement from the whistleblower regarding Istanbul Governor Davut Gül

The sixth hearing of the trial, in which CHP's presidential candidate and Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu is among the 407 defendants—107 of whom are in custody—has begun. On the final day of the first week, a situation similar to the disputes that led to a recess when the presiding judge attempted to change the seating area for members of the press occurred again yesterday. This time, lawyer-parliamentarians were requested to move to the spectator section; following objections, the hearing was terminated before it could begin.

DEMANDS FOR NEW ARRANGEMENTS ON THE AGENDA

Following the disputes in the fifth session, the court panel made notable demands to the Bakırköy Chief Public Prosecutor's Office. Accordingly, it was requested that only lawyers who have submitted a power of attorney be admitted to the courtroom. While measures were requested to prevent parliamentarians from sitting in the lawyers' benches, only holders of turquoise press cards were permitted to enter the hall.

PARLIAMENTARIANS WATCHING THE HEARING

Despite the restrictions, it was reported that parliamentarians wishing to follow the hearing moved to the spectator section and took their seats in the hall. It was reported that, in addition to CHP members, DEM Party parliamentarians were also observing the hearing.

15:40 | TUNAR'S DEFENSE ALSO CONCLUDED

According to Halk TV, businessman Hüsnü Yüksel Tunar presented his defense. Accused of mediating bribery, Tunar denied the charges. With the completion of Tunar's defense, 8 individuals have now completed their defense statements within the scope of the trial. The list of those who have testified to date is as follows:

1- Aykut Erdoğdu

2- Bulut Aydöner

3- Sırrı Küçük

4- Ümit Polat

5- Fatih Yağcı

6- Ali Üner

7- Evren Şirolu

8- Hüsnü Yüksel Tunar

15:39 | "REMOVE İMAMOĞLU FROM THIS CASE..."

Tunar’s lawyer, Özer Kırca, stated, “Remove Ekrem İmamoğlu, the presidential candidate elected by 16 million people, from this case, and it turns into a simple bribery case. Your court needs to know this. Because it is written on many pages, it is thought that there is a lot to it, but that is not the situation.”

15:37 | TUNAR: I WAS QUESTIONED FOR 5 MINUTES AND HAVE BEEN IN CUSTODY FOR 10 MONTHS

Stating that he had never seen Ertan Yıldız in his life, Tunar noted that he did his first business with the IMM during the Erdoğan era, in 1997. Pointing out that his interrogation lasted only 5 minutes before he was arrested, Tunar said, "I am a businessman who pays high taxes and is loyal to his state and nation. I have no connection to politics, and I do not expect any benefits." Stating that his father is a terminal cancer patient, Tunar expressed that he did not even have phone contact with the people who testified against him, yet he has been held in custody for 10 months.

14:35 | HÜSNÜ YÜKSEL EXPLAINED THE CONTRADICTIONS IN WHISTLEBLOWER KADİR GÜMÜŞ'S TESTIMONY

Following the defense of detained businessman Evren Şiroğlu, Hüsnü Yüksel Tunar took the stand and addressed the contradictions in the statements of Kadir Gümüş, who was released in June within the scope of his effective remorse testimony.

Tunar spoke as follows in his defense:

"Kadir Gümüş has testified five times; in three of them, he denied everything, while his last two statements were within the scope of effective remorse, and the part about me is included in these declarations. I was arrested based on his statement that 'I don't think Hüsnü knows what is inside.' He also claims that he gave 15,000 dollars, 10,000 dollars, and 12,500 dollars to Hüsnü in a sealed envelope, and that Ali Sula delivered them. However, the amounts change in every statement; in one, he says they met twice, in another, three times. Yet, I state that we never met; furthermore, his office is only 500 meters away.

I find it hard to understand why he would tell such a big lie. The only true thing he said is that we are not close; we only know each other from the sector. Other than that, his statements are full of contradictions. He insists that he will present bank receipts, but there is still no such document. In this situation, I do not know how to defend myself. He claims to associate money with me whose date is unknown and whose amount is constantly changing; I, on the other hand, still maintain my bewilderment at the prosecutor's office. I wish he were here so I could ask, 'Mr. Kadir, why did you make such an accusation?'"

14:35 | HÜSNÜ YÜKSEL TUNAR ON THE STAND

After the defense of detained businessman Evren Şiroğlu, another businessman, Hüsnü Yüksel Tunar, took the stand. With the start of Tunar's defense, the eighth detainee in the case will have been heard.

14:33 | "I HAVE SERVED 7 MONTHS, I WOULD SERVE 7 YEARS, I WOULD NOT SLANDER ANYONE"

Evren Şiroğlu's lawyer explained that Şiroğlu said, 'I have served 7 months, I would serve 7 years, I would not slander anyone':

"The principle that the defendant benefits from doubt has turned into 'the prosecutor benefits from doubt' in this file. There is not a single piece of evidence in the file. There is one person in the allegation, a third person. That person was not even called to testify by the prosecutor. Is the prosecution trying to say, 'You cannot get out unless you confirm what Ümit Polat says'? I told him this. He said, 'I have served 7 months, I would serve 7 years, I would not slander anyone'."

14:04 | ŞİROĞLU: MY NAME IS NOT MENTIONED IN 15 SECRET WITNESS AND 86 EFFECTIVE REMORSE STATEMENTS

Businessman Evren Şiroğlu stated that he was arrested based on Ümit Polat's declarations and that he had shown two people as witnesses, but emphasized that they were also striving to have the testimonies of those shown as witnesses taken. Stating that he sold goods to Ağaç A.Ş. but could not collect his money, Üner noted that issuing a check for the end of the year is also a normal process in trade.

Following Şiroğlu's testimony, his lawyer began his defense. The statement given by businessman Şiroğlu was as follows:

"Ümit Polat spoke as if something existed and then didn't; I was arrested with those declarations. He claimed that I committed an act whose place and time are unknown. Ümit Polat also showed two names as witnesses; we are striving to have the testimonies of these two people taken, whether favorable or unfavorable. I sold goods to Ağaç AŞ, but I could not collect my money; issuing a check towards the end of the year is a normal process in trade.

Even though I did not receive any new orders, I cannot understand why Ümit Polat went to complain about Ali Sukas. If Mehmet Özdemir can identify me, I will accept all the accusations; I am that confident. I sold goods to Ağaç AŞ for the first time in 2022; I saw Ali Sukas for the first time in his office in July 2023.

In other words, I am seeing the person I am alleged to have bribed for the first time after four years, from 2019 to 2023. I did not enter any tenders; if I had, the tender process would have been published in stages and this would have been visible. The money I withdrew is written in the MASAK report; this is money I withdrew for my family.

I withdrew 150 thousand liras, and this is a natural transaction that everyone who does business does. I do not have a close bond with Ali Sukas; we met briefly four or five times in four years. Companies selling goods would take nine-to-ten-month checks and withdraw them when they could not be paid when the day came; Ağaç AŞ was in a situation where it could not even pay for the fuel of the vehicles, so there was no possibility of giving a bribe.

In any case, no one in the sector wanted to sell goods to Ağaç AŞ. In fact, a lien was placed on my company; would a lien be placed on the company of someone who has a bribery relationship? Ümit Polat tried to establish contact with me by sending a child to my gallery; when we asked Evren yesterday, he said, 'We didn't send any messages,' but I am also presenting the messages of his daughter and the notes in his wife's handwriting with their documents. Furthermore, my name is not mentioned in 15 secret witness and approximately 86 effective remorse statements."

14:04 | BUSINESSMAN EVREN ŞİROĞLU IS GIVING HIS DEFENSE

After businessman Ali Üner finished his defense with a request for release and acquittal, his lawyer made a defense. After Üner, businessman/contractor Evren Şiroğlu took the stand.

13:40 | ALİ ÜNER: THERE IS NO CONCRETE EVIDENCE AGAINST ME: I HEARD, I HAD SEEN...

Businessman Ali Üner, who began his defense after the break, said that he did not accept any of the accusations against him. Üner, "The prosecutor is making an assessment that if others gave bribes, Ali Üner must have given them too. There is no concrete evidence against me. I heard, I had seen..." used the expressions.

Üner ended his defense with a request for release. After Üner's defense, his lawyer is making a defense. The defense of businessman Ali Üner was as follows:

"In this process, both I and my family were victimized. My commercial life was damaged. What I understand from the indictment is that the honorable prosecutor thought that if other businessmen gave bribes, Ali Üner must have given them too. I did not give bribes to anyone.

I did not make an agreement in this direction either. I do not accept the accusations. None of these people have concrete evidence based on the fact that I gave a bribe. Secret witness Gürgen says, 'As far as I know, Ali Üner is on the list.' Murat Or also said, 'I heard that Ali Üner's company was prioritized.' No witness has made a concrete statement such as 'he delivered money'.

They have used statements based on assumptions. I never told Ümit Polat that Ali Sukas asked me for money. I don't even know him. He is lying. If I had made such an agreement with Ali Sukas, why would I tell Ümit Polat about it? Ümit Polat does not say this in his statement in May 2025.

He makes such a statement after 6 months have passed. I think Ümit Polat said this to benefit from effective remorse. As a result, I do not accept the accusations leveled against me. I have been in custody for 10 months and I am a victim. I want a decision for my release and acquittal."

13:35 | FROM İMAMOĞLU TO THE PRESS: I AM GLAD YOU EXIST, THANK YOU VERY MUCH

Speaking to the press while the detainees were being taken into the hall, İmamoğlu, "I am glad you exist, I thank the press very much, this is the clearest sign of what is being done to the press here" he said. On the other hand, IMM Deputy Mayor Nuri Aslan, whose entry into the hall was blocked twice before the hearing was recessed, was also admitted to the hall.

13:34 | THE HEARING HAS RESTARTED

The 1-hour break given after Ağaç A.Ş. purchasing chief Fatih Yağcı made his defense has ended. The detainees have started to be taken into the hall. The hearing will continue with the defense of businessman Ali Üner. Üner is accused of "giving a bribe" within the scope of the 131st act in the indictment. Üner had denied the accusations leveled against him in his statements during the prosecution phase.

12:37 | THE HEARING WAS RECESSED

After Ağaç A.Ş. purchasing chief Fatih Yağcı made his defense and requested his acquittal, the hearing was recessed. Ekrem İmamoğlu left the hall saying, 'I love you all'.

12:32 | NURİ ASLAN WAS NOT EVEN ALLOWED IN AS A SPECTATOR!

IMM Deputy Mayor Nuri Aslan was not admitted to the courtroom even as a spectator. Gendarmerie teams did not allow Aslan to enter the courtroom. Upon the obstruction, Aslan “Am I not an official of this state? Are you not obliged to protect the IMM? Am I not a complainant right now? Do I not represent the IMM? Fine, don't take me in” he reacted. Aslan later entered the Bar room.

12:13 | FATİH YAĞCI MADE HIS DEFENSE BY DENYING THE SECRET WITNESS'S TESTIMONY

Fatih Yağcı began his defense by denying the testimony of secret witness Gürgen. "The statements of the secret witness named Gürgen are completely false. No money was delivered to me. There is no declaration either." saying Yağcı, “HTS records are entirely due to physical conditions. I share a base with everyone who comes to the building, this is very normal" used the expressions.

"There are two chiefdoms under the purchasing directorate at Ağaç AŞ. The tender chiefdom and the purchasing chiefdom where I also work. But here, an impression is created as if I am also interfering with the tender chiefdom. Such a statement has already passed in this witness named Gürgen. He has a statement that I determined the companies together with Fatih Temur and acted in cooperation. This has absolutely no basis. Because the areas of duty of the two of us, the two chiefdoms, are completely different, their areas of responsibility are different. Both chiefdoms act independently of each other. As the purchasing chiefdom, we follow direct procurement, 3A and 3G plant purchases. The tender chiefdom, on the other hand, follows the tender for peat, fertilizer, plant material, construction materials, plumbing, electricity, etc., and construction and maintenance works. The areas we look at are completely different. My job here as a unit manager is to manage the operation of the unit, to follow the purchasing processes, it consists entirely of these. How do we do the purchasing? First of all, we have our purchasing processes, we have our procedure. There is also the Ağaç AŞ regulation. We act within these two frameworks. First of all, our purchasing personnel receive offers from companies. These companies are companies on the approved supplier list. That is, this approved supplier list is evaluated with suppliers every year along with supplier evaluation forms. Unit managers take this under signature and send it to us. We prepare the approved supplier list as a summary and send it to the general directorate. The general directorate also approves this. We work with these companies at first. We create the approximate cost with these companies. Sometimes a situation arises, we cannot get enough offers while creating the approximate cost. This time, we receive offers from scratch from the companies we meet by visiting the suppliers. Thus, we create the approximate cost and send it to the general directorate for approval. We also do not have the authority to purchase. Everything is finished for us after the approximate cost. We visit constantly to dominate the market. It is 4 times a month, sometimes it is 5, sometimes it is 1. It changes according to the season. We both add new companies to our list and we definitely visit the suppliers to follow up on our products of some companies we have contracted with and to see new product varieties. We bring their reports and archive them. When necessary, as I said before, we use them. Here, the statement given by the witness named Gürgen is completely baseless."

12:05 | WHISTLEBLOWER POLAT'S LAWYER'S DEFENSE HAS ENDED

The defense of Ümit Polat's lawyer has ended. The hearing will continue with Fatih Yağcı's defense.

11:30 | NURİ ASLAN IS BEING KEPT WAITING OUTSIDE!

It was learned that IMM Deputy Mayor Nuri Aslan came to Silivri to follow the hearing but has been kept waiting outside for an hour and a half.

Nuri Aslan, who came to the building to watch the hearing but was not admitted to the courtroom, noted that he was not admitted to the hall on the grounds that his name was not on the list. Aslan reacted to not being admitted to the hall not as a political person, but as the IMM Deputy Mayor. Aslan said that there are sensible administrators in the state and that he believes they will definitely solve this problem.

10:29 | WHISTLEBLOWER: I DO NOT WANT TO BE DISRESPECTFUL TO GOVERNOR DAVUT GÜL

Although he is a "whistleblower," former Ağaç AŞ Manager Ümit Polat, who was not released, had claimed that a person who is a cousin of Istanbul Governor Davut Gül told him through Ağaç AŞ personnel, "Don't make a sound, wait, something will happen soon anyway," and Governor Gül had denied these claims at jet speed. Gül had made a statement saying, "I have no close or distant relatives working in the IMM or IMM affiliates."

Polat clarified this issue in the sixth session:

"I do not want to be disrespectful to Governor Davut Gül. I said that the friend of the Governor's relative works in our company. I did not say that his relative works there."

THE GOVERNOR DIALOGUE BETWEEN ÜMİT POLAT AND THE PRESIDING JUDGE

Presiding Judge: I will give you the right to speak in a moment. I will give you the right to speak in a moment. You have things to say.

Ümit Polat: Mr. President, I have had a very difficult detention process. I changed three separate wards. My psychology is ruined. I mean, there is no place to sleep in the wards we went to. We stayed with populations close to fifty-five sixty people. I slept on the floor for months. I had a difficult process like this.

Presiding Judge: Let's not intervene, please.

Ümit Polat: I started using antidepressants in an environment we are not used to and did not think of. My fears formed. I went through a difficult process. That's why I couldn't express myself fully in the last statement. Because, you know, I have never made a speech in front of such a crowd. I am not someone who speaks in front of the press or speaks to a crowd. I am a civil servant doing my job. The pressure behind me crushed me. At one point, my perception disappeared. I reached a position where I couldn't answer. That's why I skipped some things. If you allow me, I want to do a small thing about them too. I want to make a correction. Now, the governor issue became news because the governor denied it.

Presiding Judge: Mr. Lawyer, he may want to make a statement now, we haven't completed the statement yet. He may want to add. We are the ones who will evaluate them at the end. If new statements come, you can ask questions again. There is no obstructive situation there.

Ümit Polat: Mr. President, I do not want to be disrespectful to the governorship, to the governor. If something wrong happened, I want to apologize. I said that the friend of the Governor's relative works in our company. I did not have a statement like 'The Governor's relative works with us.' I want to correct that. Also, I went to the first statement without a lawyer and I did not go with a request for effective remorse. I did not know what effective remorse was. Secondly; my statement for which I was already arrested is my third statement, the statement I went for effective remorse by applying from inside. I appeared before the prosecutor three times in total. Now, I had explained that I was subjected to a battery incident, but I said I did not complain, I was afraid. Of course, I complained later. I skipped that. I want that to be known. I complained about that issue after I was arrested in the ninth month. Now, a lawyer friend had asked something about the Court of Accounts issue. 'Did you pass the Court of Accounts audit?' he asked. He had asked in the period after the tulip bulb. Now, when the Court of Accounts comes, it examines the finished files. It examines it in terms of procedure.

Presiding Judge: If the detailing about the tulip bulb is about those places, we don't have such an allegation.

Ümit Polat: Again, I did not have a statement that I saw anywhere about the money being delivered. In the statement given by Ali Sukas about the sieves, there is a statement that the sieves were scrapped, that the sieve was scrap. Those sieves did not go to scrap. Those sieves were purchased by Ağaç A.Ş. in 2022. One was purchased. And one was entered as a grant with a nominal value. That statement of mine is correct. My lawyer will present the relevant document. Again, there was a topic about Tamer's companies just now. Tamer does not have only one company. The other companies are companies he made in the name of his wife's brother-in-law. He even gave products from different companies. Again, something happened, like do you meet with things, do you do it? I am not a robot after all. I mean, these are my social circles. When you are in the same sector with all of them for twenty-five years, you definitely come together, you meet. There are weddings, holidays, funerals. I don't know, I have eaten with them, I have sat and stood with them. I mean, I didn't understand what you wanted to reach from here, but I am meeting.

Presiding Judge: Is there anything else you will add or say?

Ümit Polat: No, Mr. President, for now.

LAWYER ASKED A QUESTION TO ÜMİT POLAT

Defendant Tamer Gümüş’s lawyer, reminding that Ümit Polat met with IMM prosecutors Cahit Cihat Sarı on May 27 but officially testified on May 28, asked, “Was the content of the statement you gave on May 28 discussed that day?” The presiding judge prevented this question from being answered, saying, “It was answered last week.”

ÜMİT POLAT: I NEVER HAD A STATEMENT THAT I SAW MONEY

Former Ağaç AŞ Manager Ümit Polat said that he had difficult times after his arrest. Polat, who made the 'I do not want to be disrespectful' exit regarding the Governor, said, "I went to the first statement myself, I did not have a lawyer. I didn't even know what effective remorse was. I testified three times. I never had a statement that I saw money."

CLAIMED HE WAS BEATEN

Ümit Polat claimed that Ali Sukas had him beaten 1 day before the IMM operation. Ali Sukas, on the other hand, took the floor and said, “Why didn't you call me, didn't I tell you to complain?”

10:27 | PARLIAMENTARIANS ARE FOLLOWING FROM THE SPECTATOR SECTION

According to the latest information received from Silivri, parliamentarians can enter the courtroom. The CHP parliamentarians who entered are watching the hearing from the spectator section. In addition to DEM Party's Sezai Temelli and CHP Parliamentarian Suat Özçağdaş, IMM Deputy Mayor Nuri Aslan is also in the courtroom.

10:17 | THE HEARING HAS BEGUN

After the non-detained defendants, the detained defendants also entered the courtroom. Presidential candidate Ekrem İmamoğlu was greeted with applause as he entered the courtroom. Journalists Yavuz Oğhan and Ruşen Çakır, who are among the defendants in the case, also took their places in the section where the non-detained defendants are located. The hearing began with the arrival of the court panel. The sixth session of the IMM Case began with the defense of Ümit Polat.