Facing up to 17 years in prison: New development in the 'resistance' case involving Özgür Çelik

The third hearing was held in the case opened regarding the events that occurred on January 31, when the detained Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality Mayor and presidential candidate Ekrem İmamoğlu arrived at the Çağlayan Courthouse to provide a statement.

In the trial where 26 people, including Yeni Parti İstanbul Provincial Chair Özgür Çelik, are being tried, the defendants face prison sentences ranging from 3 years and 11 months to 17 years on charges of “resisting to prevent the performance of duty,” “failing to disperse despite warnings while participating in unlawful meetings and marches unarmed,” “intentional injury,” and “damaging public property.”

Özgür Çelik did not attend the hearing, which was held by the 18th Criminal Court of First Instance in the 27th High Criminal Court courtroom. Four defendants and their lawyers were present at the hearing. The defendants who presented their defense denied the charges against them and requested acquittal.

According to the report by Cumhuriyet, the defendants argued in their defense that a peaceful gathering had been turned into a criminal case. Claiming that there is no footage in the file showing them harming police or public property, the defendants stated that they did not hear the “disperse” warning due to the crowd, that they were exposed to pepper spray, and that their exit from the area was blocked.

POLICE OFFICER: NOT POSSIBLE IN THAT CHAOS

A third police officer, who is a plaintiff in the file, was also heard at the hearing. The police officer stated that he had decided to withdraw his complaint and did not wish to participate in the case.

When asked by the judge, “Are riot shields damaged by stones, sticks, kicks, or punches? How are they broken?” the police officer replied, “They do not get damaged without intervention from the other side.”

Upon the judge's question, “Did you see any resistance?” the police officer stated, “Negative. It is not possible in that chaos.” When asked, “Was a dispersal announcement made?” the officer said, “I remember it being made,” and responded to the question, “Did they not disperse despite that?” by saying, “I am not sure.”

One of the plaintiff police officers heard in previous hearings of the case had stated that he fell to the ground due to the pressure of the crowd during the scuffle and broke his arm, but that he could not identify any of the defendants. The police officer heard in the second hearing had stated that he fell during the commotion, that no one pushed him, and that he was not complaining about the defendants.

The lawyers reiterated their requests for the police officers who signed the crime scene report to be heard. The prosecutor also requested in their interim opinion that the deficiencies in the file be addressed.

The court stated that there are 5 defendants and 2 plaintiffs who have not yet been heard and adjourned the hearing to April 19, 2027.