Striking details on the investigation from Ekrem İmamoğlu's lawyer Pehlivan: We learned the accusations while giving our statement

Mehmet Pehlivan, the lawyer for İBB Mayor and CHP presidential candidate Ekrem İmamoğlu, made notable statements during a live broadcast on Halk TV.

Speaking about the appeal filed against İmamoğlu's detention, Pehlivan stated the following:

"That petition is not just a legal document. We categorize this issue as 'judicial harassment.' Before this, there was judicial harassment initiated against him, both institutionally, personally, and regarding his family. We have presented concrete evidence of this many times. Ekrem Bey was investigated because he stood with his hands on his waist. Just as those were judicial harassment, this is also judicial harassment.

The petition first explained the judicial harassment so that the foundations of when this investigation was laid could be revealed, and then it touched upon certain specific issues regarding this investigation."

WILL THE APPEAL PETITION YIELD RESULTS?

When asked, "Do you expect to get a result from the petition submitted?" Pehlivan replied, "As lawyers, we never normalize a decision that is contrary to the law. Of course, an unlawful decision can come, and the appeal can be rejected. But we cannot base our expectations on that."

REVEALED IMPORTANT DETAILS ABOUT THE INVESTIGATION

Here are the highlights from Pehlivan's speech, in which he explained the details of the investigation for which Ekrem İmamoğlu was detained:

"Let me provide some general information before explaining the investigation into Ekrem Bey. There are accusations directed at us in an investigation involving financial content and evaluated by the public as corruption. Of course, there is a confidentiality order on the file. However, despite this confidentiality order, we saw a lot of content regarding this investigation in some media outlets and on social media days before the detention process.

"WE LEARNED THE ACCUSATIONS WHILE GIVING OUR STATEMENT"

However, ultimately, we learned the accusations alleged by the Prosecutor's Office while giving our statement at the Istanbul Police Department. The table we shared here was prepared within the framework of an analysis we conducted on the allegations directed at us.

In summary, a 121-page statement document was presented to Ekrem Bey, that is, Ekrem İmamoğlu. In this statement, apart from basic identity information, 46 questions were directed at him. We analyzed these 46 questions and the evidence associated with them. 31 of the 46 questions were based on witness statements.

Some of these were secret witnesses, and some were open witnesses. However, the names of the open witnesses were hidden in the police statement. This situation was presented to us using a method considered a 'prohibited interrogation' not only in Turkish law but also in continental European and Anglo-Saxon law. We expressed our legal objection to this both at the Police Department and the Prosecutor's Office.

I mentioned that 31 of the 46 questions were based on witness statements. That is, two out of every three questions were built on witness statements. In addition to this, 4 questions were based on the MASAK report, and 7 questions were based on the inspector's report. The inspector's report was prepared by the Ministry of Interior's civil service inspectors.

"THE REPORT THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SENT TO İBB WAS SENT TO THE PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE"

Although this report should have been sent to the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality by law, it was sent only to the Public Prosecutor's Office. The inspectors conducted an examination by summoning the files from the municipality. However, there is no clear information on whether they conducted a direct inspection at the municipality. Although the questions based on the inspector's report appear fewer in number, they make up 58 pages of the 121-page statement document. That is, it covers almost half of it.

Apart from this, 4 separate questions were asked to Mr. İmamoğlu regarding HTS records and base station data. We can analyze the main framework of the investigation in this way."

"NOT A SINGLE QUESTION WAS ASKED"

Mehmet Pehlivan gave a striking response to journalist Hilmi Hacaloğlu's question regarding allegations that İmamoğlu lived with his family in the presidential residence in Sarıyer, which is owned by the İBB: "Was there any fraudulent situation? I mean, was the money for those villas paid? What is the truth behind this villa issue? Did Ekrem İmamoğlu enter into an illegal relationship with Ali Nuhoğlu behind closed doors?"

Pehlivan said, "The public might be surprised, but there is not a single question directed at Mr. İmamoğlu regarding the villas in Sarıyer, which have been talked about for days. There is no question on this subject in the 121-page statement."