Özel's Luxembourg statement: While AKP trolls troll away for a square meal, the people are sailing yachts on the Moselle River

CHP leader Özgür Özel answered questions from Seda Selek, Fikret Bila, and Kürşad Oğuz on Halk TV on the first anniversary of March 19 — the opening day of the process that led to the arrest of Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality (IBB) Mayor and CHP presidential candidate Ekrem İmamoğlu.

The key points of Özgür Özel's remarks are as follows:

There is a simple way to refute a claim. In fact, I am so confident on this matter that I told my colleagues at the end of the press conference: this can be checked through any authority in Turkey that is authorised to query land registry records — all land registry offices, municipal administrations, district municipal administrations, metropolitan municipal administrations, and most simply of all, the Ministry of Environment and Urbanisation.

I am not saying 'I heard there is such a title deed.' I am citing the ID number of the transaction. What that means is this: just as I might say, for example, that Ms. Selek's national ID number is such-and-such — if it isn't, she won't say 'this is fabricated, it's a lie.' She will say 'this is my ID number' or 'that ID belongs to someone else.' She will say, 'we entered that ID and nothing came up.' Not a single one of my claims about this individual is based on hearsay — 'I heard it, I did this, I did that.' I only speak when there is something concrete. For instance, the 'yacht' matter is something we have heard about but still needs to be proven. But this ID number — example number one — is an apartment in Avrupa Konutları, located at İnönü Caddesi 151D, Esentepe, Kartal, Istanbul, plot number 10106661, parcel number 551, belonging to Akın Gürlek, with a comparable market value of 26 million 250 thousand lira. He will say this does not exist. He will say this ID does not belong to me. Up to now I have cited 12 title deeds for which the state has the means to query, and I have said four of them were sold. Yes. If even one of them were wrong, they would have come after me by now. There are two people who have come out in support of the gentleman — and that support is not for him, it is hostility toward me. One of them is Süleyman Soylu, who retweeted his tweet. You know how Süleyman Soylu used to say — after he said that, we have all kinds of dealings with AKP members. He had said: 'From now on, anyone who greets Özgür Özel is no longer one of us.' Nobody failed to heed him. The only one greeting Akın Gürlek is himself. And there is a deputy chairman of the MHP who has a personal grudge against us.

Senior judicial circles are in turmoil, Ankara is shaken. The claims are being treated as 'already known, now proven.' The prevailing sentiment within the AKP is: we cannot bear this burden. The prevailing discourse in judicial circles — I told you this just before the broadcast — do you hear it? Do you see it? It is being talked about in Ankara. The dominant line in judicial circles is: 'it was being said, now it has been proven.'

A joint denial like that is no denial at all. What is a denial? He says these are products of imagination. 'I was someone who fought terrorism,' he says — look at that rote response. And he says 'this is aimed at wearing me down and making me a target.' When you say someone who fought terrorism, I was with them at an iftar dinner last night. Men who gave their arms, their legs, their children. We all embraced each other.

There are 18 legislative proposals that embody all of their demands, and your party is keeping them waiting in parliament. If you are going to stand up for the person who fought terrorism, you are not the man who should be doing that standing. A man who has accumulated 16 title deeds. A man in whose name apartments worth up to ten times his entire lifetime salary have been found — or sold — and beyond that, it does not end there. We also submit declarations. I submit the same asset declaration that he does.

The state asks for everything — my own title deeds, my wife's, my daughter's, if any; vehicles, if any; all deposit accounts in Turkish lira and foreign currency; jewellery if any, diamonds if any, gold if any, down to the gram.

'CALL FOR GÜRLEK TO DISCLOSE HIS ASSETS'

Let him disclose his assets. Look, my asset declaration is held by the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, by parliament, by the state. In total, our family has three homes — one in Manisa, one in Istanbul, and one in Ankara. The one in Ankara was purchased more recently and is being renovated; I lived in a guesthouse for 17 years. In Ankara.

There are two cars. One is a five-or-six-year-old car belonging to my wife, and the other is a three-year-old car that is mine. One is worth around 1.5 million lira, the other around 900,000 lira. There are two modest shops on a side street — every resident of Manisa knows them. Modest shops next to a health clinic, the kind that would only be suitable for a pharmacy, nothing else.

I have an account at İş Bankası — a pharmacy account. We have been using it since 1999. The money coming in from Vakıfbank and Halkbank is traceable. That is where my assets are. Every one of those assets was purchased with money from those accounts. Down to the last kuruş — let them examine it all.

Now let us see Akın Bey's asset declaration. By asset declaration I mean — just as the state requires of me — deposits in Turkish lira, deposits in foreign currency, all real estate belonging to the entire family, and if there is jewellery, gold, or expensive watches or anything else, those must be declared too.

The state requires all of this. Let him disclose the assets he has declared, so everyone can see. Let him show that the IDs I have provided do not correspond to any property. Look, at 1:30 I will go on live television in front of all of Turkey and state all of his transactions with their ID numbers, address by address. His response: 'I fought terrorism, he is targeting me.' That is not an answer.

Mr. Özel, Justice Minister Akın Gürlek said he would take the matter to the judiciary. When a case is filed and goes to court, doesn't everything — what exists, what doesn't, what is true, what is real — need to come out in court with documentation?

First, there is something he said — the last thing he said: 'If you had these documents, you should have gone to the judiciary.' I did go to the judiciary. The way to take legal action against a judge or an Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor is to go to the HSK — the Council of Judges and Prosecutors. I went to the HSK. I said five, but it turned out I had seven pending applications. Applications they had not acted on.

You file a complaint against Akın Gürlek, they say go to the HSK, but with Akın Gürlek in charge, a minister can't do anything — that's how it works. Every time I make a statement, he runs to meet with Erdoğan. What does the AKP community say? He goes directly to Erdoğan, they say. He had a character that made everyone uncomfortable. He is damaging Erdoğan, they say. Now they are asking how we will carry this burden. But there is one clear thing, one clear thing.

There is something I see, there is something I see. All the allegations we made against this person were pending at the HSK — and now they have put this person in charge of the HSK by making him Justice Minister. As the saying goes: God help you when the plaintiff becomes the judge. Can you imagine? Now the judge has become the plaintiff against us. That is the first point. Second, he tells me: 'Go ahead, take it to court.' In that case, I say: bring it on. I say bring it on from the screens of Halk TV. If you are not afraid of this matter — he says 'take it to court' — I will take him to court. He has taken refuge behind his immunity. There are two ways for him to lose that immunity. The first is for him to resign, stand trial, and return to office. The second is simpler — he can remain in office. It requires 400 signatures. We have 140 of them. We have 138 of them. The rest are in the AKP. 400 signatures are enough to establish an investigation commission into Akın Gürlek — in fact 300 signatures suffice for the first step, and with 400 signatures the Supreme Court of Jurisdiction can be convened. Since he is not running from the judiciary, since he has nothing to hide — fine, let the Constitutional Court try him in its capacity as the Supreme Court of Jurisdiction. What he should do is go to Erdoğan and say: 'I cannot be crushed under this burden. I want to be tried on the allegations made by Özgür Özel.' Today, the only place a minister can be tried is the Constitutional Court — bring it on. My asset declaration is in their hands. Let them open it and lay it out. Let us see his asset declaration — let it be opened and laid out. For example, if this ID is not in his asset declaration, it means he sold this property — but that too will be visible. Then we will see the money in his account. Did you hide this money somewhere, deposit it, receive it, spend it? We have assets worth 450 million Turkish lira that were either acquired or sold and converted to cash.

This is the number of the title deed. Yes. Akın Gürlek — when Akın Gürlek says there is no corresponding entry in the land registry cabinet, but you say you obtained it from the land registry... This number is the number corresponding to the entry in the land registry. He will say: 'This number — I have had no such transaction.'

At one point we applied about these matters. We said, look at the asset declaration and so on. At that time, the previous Justice Minister was in charge. Akın Bey was also putting pressure on Erdoğan, going back and forth, saying 'make sure they don't investigate that file.'

'CLEARING THIS SUSPICION IS IN THE HANDS OF THE JUSTICE MINISTER'

We are asking him: 'Where did you get it from?' He needs to explain. The 'where did you get it from' law is already such a law. If you have acquired an asset... Look, I am explaining right now where I got mine from. Every asset I have acquired, every vehicle I have bought or sold, I made official transactions from those accounts. In some cases, it is said that certain purchases were paid by promissory note. A note was given. Who honoured the note, who cashed it, who paid it, who drew it up, who brokered it? All of this requires explanation. Now, just as false and misleading statements were made about Ekrem İmamoğlu and our colleagues — on the first day he took office, he appeared on A Haber. Journalists asked questions. He said: 'An investigation,' he said, 'begins with reasonable suspicion.' But in fact an investigation begins with simple suspicion. A prosecution begins with reasonable suspicion. Reasonable suspicion is required for a trial. The indictment must be accepted.

Reasonable suspicion. An investigation begins with simple suspicion. I am now expressing a simple suspicion so that an investigation may be launched. I am also a member of parliament — as a representative of the people, I hold the following simple suspicion. The gentleman presided over very critical courts and held a very critical position as Chief Public Prosecutor. During that tenure, a large number of people said that their assets had been seized, that they were advised to become informants in order to recover those assets, and that they were required to hand over a portion of their assets. They said lawyers acted as intermediaries, that bag carriers came and went, and that an IBB stock exchange was established.

Did the person who wrote the IBB indictment, who held the pen, lick his fingers? That is the simple suspicion. Clearing this suspicion is in the hands of the Justice Minister. Why am I raising this? Under normal circumstances, when he was Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor, I was placing these suspicions before the HSK. Mr. Devlet Bahçeli told me: 'Akın Gürlek is now a political figure.' Akın Gürlek — why are CHP members objecting at the swearing-in ceremony?

Let Özgür Bey and his colleagues ask him questions, he said. Even though today one of the MHP's deputy chairmen is trying to defend Akın Gürlek blindly, with whatever respect he can muster — one of those two — I am the one asking now. Devlet Bey said ask questions, so I am asking questions. Wait for Akın Gürlek to give his answer. I hold a simple suspicion. While he was performing public duties, very significant assets, very significant detentions, releases, informant arrangements, past FETÖ stock exchanges, now the IBB stock exchange... Well, one property multiplying this much — ten times, a hundred times — ten prosecutors would have to come together, work for 190 years, and not spend a single drop of water from their earnings. Only then could such assets be accumulated legitimately.

There is discontent within the AKP. Actually, the discontent is like this — Kürşat Bey, all of you follow politics very closely. For example, where did the previous Interior Minister come from? He came from the Istanbul Governorship. They brought a bureaucrat from the Istanbul Governor's office and made him Interior Minister. Bülent Turan, a loyal son of the AKP, served as deputy parliamentary group chairman for years. I do not share the same views as Bülent Turan in AKP politics — we have clashed many times — but I have a certain respect for him, a gentlemanly code between us.

Just as I rose through every level of the Republican People's Party — from the smallest cog in the watch — Bülent Turan rose through AKP politics. Bülent Turan came up and became a deputy minister. Then above him came the Istanbul Governor, who was made minister. Then that minister dropped everything and went after Bülent Turan. In the end the minister was changed and left. Bülent Turan is still standing. But now, for example, instead of Bülent Turan becoming Interior Minister, this time the Governor of Erzurum is placed above Bülent Turan. This time the AKP's politicians are saying: 'We have spent all this time — God knows — every one of them started by sweeping the floors of their local party branches. They started by hauling firewood for the stove. We will spend years in politics, rise from the smallest cog all the way up, and then an appointee will be placed over us again.'

I am not saying this to criticise the current Interior Minister — I am speaking about the position of the previous one. What AKP politics is debating right now is this: 'All this effort, all this dedication, all this service to the organisation counts for nothing — it's always appointees, always appointees.' The previous appointee came, disgraced us all, and left. Was the departure of that Interior Minister even a real departure? The Interior Minister came and tried to hold on by slandering politicians who had worked for years, insulting them, undermining them, feeding misinformation to the opposition, telling the press 'ask tough questions so they get stuck,' doing this and doing that.

I have nothing to do with AKP politics. But from a fairness standpoint, a party cannot carry this burden, cannot sustain it. Always appointees, always appointees.

Do you think President Erdoğan will let go of Akın Gürlek?

Well, Akın Gürlek is a special case. The strongest bond is the one that ties people together through shared crimes. There are situations where it is stronger than the umbilical cord between a mother and her baby. They feed off each other, they sustain each other, they make promises to each other. He promises Erdoğan to destroy his rival and his rival's party in order to secure another presidential term. And Erdoğan promises him protection despite every kind of lawlessness.

That first promise — he drew up the indictment against Ekrem İmamoğlu, did whatever he did, and then Erdoğan went and made him a minister, took him under protection. Everyone he asked for was made a deputy minister; those he wanted were placed in vacated positions below. Look, in this country there are two kinds of people. One kind reads about the things you and I read about and says, 'Come on, can this really happen?' For example — in the diploma case, transferring the judge who filed a dissenting opinion to Kahramanmaraş; in the tender fraud case, transferring that judge to Kahramanmaraş; in the Beylikdüzü case, the judge who had been stalling for five years — when told 'go ahead and submit your opinion' and he didn't, the judge who then announced the ruling was transferred to Diyarbakır; the judge in the acquisition case who ruled in favour of Ekrem Bey — bang, transferred to Samsun; in the case of insulting Akın Gürlek, the judge who wrote a dissenting opinion was transferred from a heavy criminal court or civil court of first instance to a labour court; in the IBB investigations, the financial crimes unit chief was transferred and made district police chief in Başakşehir; in the acquisition case, the appeals panel was sent to other chambers; in the expert witness case, the judge was transferred to another court.

Now, eight people who said 'I do not act on orders, I do what is right, I file a dissenting opinion on a ruling' are being scattered to the winds. Then another court case comes along — the ninth — and the message is: 'Go ahead, write a dissenting opinion.' That is the kind of legal order that has been established in this country. And Akın Gürlek, who had all of these people dispersed to various places because they 'didn't rule the way we wanted, didn't do what we said, wrote a dissenting opinion'...

In this country, judges and prosecutors are reassigned through summer and winter decree rotations; there is geographic security of tenure, and there is a guarantee that their posts will not be changed unless there are serious moral failings, theft, or personal misconduct. Never mind the summer and winter decrees — these colleagues are being transferred simply because they filed a dissenting opinion in a court ruling, simply because they said 'this is not right, I think otherwise.' Three days later, five days later, seven days later...

I am not saying this to accuse the vice presidents or the Speaker of Parliament. I tell everyone at every opportunity, I say. I even sent a message today, I say. I will even say this: our Republican People's Party had a Prison Monitoring and Inspection Commission from 2011 to 2015. Myself, Veli Ağbaba, Nurettin Demir. We visited all the prisons in Turkey to check for rights violations. And we did not make distinctions there either. Right-wing organisation, left-wing organisation, this one, that one — we turned a blind eye to all that and looked only for rights violations. Today, if the AKP formed a three-person delegation — they have good lawyers — and that delegation went and listened to the IBB detainees: were you, your family, your sibling, your child subjected to threats to their freedom, or were you blackmailed, were you threatened? If a report came out of that. Don't bring the report to me.

Take it to Erdoğan, take it to the party's authorised bodies, take it to your own conscience. But here is what I am saying: right now in Turkey, because of the charge of defeating Erdoğan, and in anticipation of the possibility that Erdoğan could be removed from power in the future — and because they have not conducted normal politics either — they have gotten themselves into a situation where our coming to power cannot happen. Handing over power for us is not simply passing the baton and going home. They themselves say: we have this risk, we have that risk, we'll go to prison, it'll unravel like a run in a stocking, all the bureaucrats will talk, and so on and so forth. They have turned this matter into something where they have entered into a grand conspiracy to keep Ekrem İmamoğlu behind bars and to prevent the Republican People's Party and its cadres from ever seeing power. When they went in, they found nothing — in ways they had not anticipated. When they went in, they thought they would find something. Because people judge others by their own standards. They told themselves: 'Whoever is doing business with Istanbul must be taking 10-15, maybe 20 percent from it.' That is what they did. Look, I am saying this openly today. Today I have taken an oath. Let someone come forward and say 'I swear too' — there is no one. I am saying that what we call the pool media — led by Sabah newspaper, along with Kanal 24 and various newspapers and calendars then under the TMSF — a pool was created under the chairmanship and management of Binali Yıldırım to turn these outlets into pro-AKP media organisations. Is there anyone in Turkey who doesn't know this? Public contractors made 'voluntary' — in quotation marks — contributions to this pool. Media dominance was established through that pool. Binali Bey earned Erdoğan's trust in AKP circles through this. Binali Bey's greatest achievement was that during his years as Transport Minister — when the AKP's most important tenders were in the transport sector — contractors who received public tenders in transport contributed to a pool. The pool media was created from that pool. If this did not happen, may God punish me. Let even one person from the AKP come forward and swear that 'this did not happen' — let me see it. Let them say such a thing did not happen. Everyone knows this, everyone knows it happened this way. Look — on December 17-25, money was found in shoebox after shoebox in the homes of four ministers and their children's homes. First they said FETÖ planted it — the same reflex as today's 'I fight terrorism, I am being targeted.' In the end, they demanded back with interest the money they said FETÖ had planted. The money they first reflexively attributed to FETÖ. Do you know what Erdoğan said on a programme like this? He turned to the subject being discussed — Turkey was talking about all of this. He said early on: 'Is money leaving the state's pocket, the treasury's pocket, the public's pocket?' he said. 'If no money is leaving the public's pocket, there is no corruption,' he said. In other words, he was saying: 'That money was collected by others, it was not taken from the municipal budget. Therefore there is no corruption,' Erdoğan was saying. The person who normalised this, who acknowledged the existence of that money and attributed legitimacy to it, is Erdoğan.

None of us — look — they held a detector up to the earring in one of our colleagues' child's ear to check if it was gold. If it was gold, they took it off and confiscated it. They emptied out piggy banks. Was it 30,000 dollars or something that came out — who was going abroad? Was it 3,000 dollars, was it 30,000 dollars? They mentioned it in a yellow envelope. They cited that as evidence. Which of us had bales of cash found? The video they showed as evidence of cash found at Gaziosmanpaşa Municipality turned out to be stock footage. I was watching the Gaziosmanpaşa search on TRT. A hidden safe was found at Gaziosmanpaşa Municipality. 'What does that have to do with anything?' I said. I called out 'Gökhan Zeybek' — like this, look. I said Gökhan Zeybek. His private secretary called, Gökhan Zeybek came. 'What is a safe doing in a municipality?' I said. 'There shouldn't be a safe in a municipality, sir,' he said. Gökhan Zeybek called. The mayor is in custody; he knew someone from the municipal council — like it was yesterday. They said it was a safe left over from the AKP's time in office. The AKP put the safe there with whatever was inside it — a big safe. I said, 'What is foreign currency doing there?' 'There was no foreign currency,' they said. 'Bring me the search report,' I said. Within 15 minutes, a photo of the search report came via WhatsApp. It says: 'A safe hidden behind the mayor's office, left over from the previous term, was opened; inside were found the municipality's official seal and a presentation made to the mayor during the handover — a presentation showing the previous mayor how much was owed, how much was receivable, and a hard disk or CD or whatever came out.' 'How is this possible?' I said. This time I called out 'Şevket.' Şevket Bey came — our press adviser, the party's press consultant. 'Ask TRT about this,' I said. 'They are showing dollars coming out, but the search report says this.' They said: 'We had no footage of the actual search moment, so we used stock footage. And in the stock footage, dollars happen to be coming out of a safe. They wrote across the screen in big letters: Hidden safe found at Gaziosmanpaşa Municipality — and the police are pulling out dollars. Those were stock images, not from today. They were the dollars of some mafia, a drug cartel's dollars.'

AKP spokesperson Ömer Çelik said, regarding your statements: 'All of these are claims that float in the air with no documents attached to them.'

What document is supposed to be attached? What does he understand by document? I mean — is this not a document? If this is not a document, Ömer Çelik, what am I supposed to stamp on your forehead? If he doesn't even count this as a document — what am I supposed to stamp on Ömer Çelik's forehead? That is what I am asking. I am asking him: look, there are 12 title deeds here, 12 of them. All belonging to Akın Gürlek. If this is not a document, what is? You should have come out and said this document is fake. Say it — say this document is fake. He doesn't say that, does he — he just makes a statement. He can't say it, he can't swallow it — how would he say it?

Özgür Özel's eraser keeps running out before his pen. At this rate, he will erase the CHP from history, he says.

The eraser running out before the pencil is not a bad thing. If the eraser runs out while the pencil is still writing, that's good. If the pencil runs out while the eraser keeps going, that's bad.

What I mean is: the more you raise your hand, the higher the likelihood that the pressure will increase too. That can happen. And look, there's already this — I said don't hold back anything they've got. What I told Ömer Çelik is this: 'Every time I tell the truth against you, every time I fight, every time I stand firm, you attack me — go ahead, brother. Because the people see it, the people see it.' You're saying the deed is not a document. He'll say this to me, he'll say that. Our Minister of Justice — as Özgür Özel mentioned — has no title deeds, never had any, never bought any, never sold any; his asset declaration is proportionate to his income, or the proceeds from properties he disposed of are such and such. Let him tell me that. What more is needed? I mean, Özgür Bey — the statements Ömer Bey made, this is the second time. He ends the statement about you with 'They will bury the CHP in history.' Could those words be interpreted as a possible closure case against the CHP? Do you have any such intelligence? Are you prepared for that?

Now, for 47 years we had not been the first party. In the very first election entered under Özgür Özel's leadership, we became the first party, and in the latest poll ahead of Ömer Bey, I am still the first party. In virtually all the polls on my desk, I am the first party. Except in one — by a fraction — in some surveys conducted by circles sympathetic to the AKP. Second: they founded the party, they have been in power for 23 years. They were always first. What did they used to say? 'We won and won and won.' Who won the last election, Ömer Bey? Have you ever beaten Özgür Özel, Ömer Bey? Have you ever had a victory in an election held while Özgür Özel was party leader, Ömer Bey? Have you ever beaten Ekrem İmamoğlu, Mr. Erdoğan? Ekrem İmamoğlu ran four times and won four times. Under Özgür Özel's leadership — I said it here, I said it in the arena — just as Ecevit entered and won, two local and two general, we came out as the first party in four elections in the seventies.

Mr. Bahçeli was also in the opposition at the time: he used to mock us, saying 'Mr. Bahçeli, Mr. Kılıçdaroğlu, if I don't come out of this election as the first party, I'll step down — will you step down too?' I came out as the first party. I would have stepped down if I hadn't. I will step down if I fail in the next election. Can you step down? You are the loser right now. Don't look at what someone says when they win; to judge their democratic credentials, look at what they do when they lose. That's why it's clear-cut.

Now, of course we see it, don't we? Recently, a brother I deeply respect — the leader of a party — asked me, 'Is the CHP under blackmail?' 'I wonder,' he said, and so on. What more blackmail could there be? Are you really asking, 'Is it under blackmail?' My dear brother! The man says to me: 'Hey Özgür Özel, go back to Ankara, sit at the head of your party. Do Ankara-centred politics.' What does that mean? It means: if you don't go back to Ankara and keep holding rallies, I will remove you from the party leadership. There's no need for interpretation here! This is a simple plain reading. It can be understood at face value; no lengthy commentary is needed.

What you said today — before undecided voters are distributed, my party has 32.4 percent. In the last election, six parties got 5 percent while we got 25 percent. I won 65 percent of the municipalities across Turkey. Once undecided voters are distributed, my vote share is at the 38–39 level. And on top of that, all these polls are conducted among voters who say 'my phone is being tapped, I'm afraid.'

Under these conditions, how is this party supposed to be zeroed out? What did he mean? Does one need to explain the obvious? He is threatening openly, openly — but the people see it, and I suppose that is the extent of Ömer Bey's courage. Erdoğan knows he cannot beat me in an election. There is no confidence in the women's branches, the youth branches, the main body, the party spokesperson, or the MPs. Akın Gürlek will beat us — is that what Ömer Çelik is counting on? Has Adana's brave son been reduced to relying on nullity? The people will kick you out. If you pin all your hopes on nullity, what will happen to you in the end is that you'll get kicked out. The people will kick you out at the election.

"LET HIM COME HERE AND TRY TO ARM-WRESTLE"

Otherwise, Ömer Bey is welcome — the arm is right here, let him come and bend it. He can't bend this arm, so are we saying we can't beat Akın either? Has the entire AK Party come down to relying on Akın? Will Akın beat the one that 23 years of AK Party couldn't beat, and will Ömer Çelik and Mr. Tayyip boast about that? This people will wipe the floor with that man, wipe the floor with him!

They surround parliament with tanks, artillery, soldiers, and commandos. They surround Çankaya Palace and stage a coup. They take people away and lock them up — and yet this people brings back and honours those who were subjected to the coup. Now, if Ömer Çelik's hope rests on coup-makers who climbed down from tanks and put on robes, then that Ömer Çelik should not be laughing and boasting about democracy here and there. He should not be telling me success stories here and there.

When the party's plane is nose-up, I can laugh too. But if the nose is pointing down and you're saying 'Run, Akın, save us. Sink them so we can rise' — then this people has been wasting its votes on you all along, has been counting on you for nothing. All this poverty, all this helplessness, all this misery — it is all your product. Just look at this. When things go wrong, you turned into coup-makers. Shame on you! Shame on the coup-making mentality.

"THERE ARE REPORTS POURING IN LIKE RAIN"

Today you disclosed the title deeds. Will there be any further work or statement regarding Akın Bey's assets under other headings — are you preparing something like that?

As far as I know, there were 16 title deeds, and he sold four of them. There is real estate totalling 450 million liras. But I don't know about his jewellery, his gold, his diamonds, his silver, his bullion. But there is someone who should know — the state. If he shares the asset declaration he submitted to the state, we will see. Separately, I currently have no breakdown regarding Akın Gürlek's wife's assets or properties beyond his own.

Second, there is a retired police officer at RTÜK. He got in at Akın Bey's request. Nobody at RTÜK has even seen his face yet. He draws a salary as Deputy Head of Department. This too is a tip-off. If the Court of Accounts goes and looks, let it look there — whether this personnel is actually there. A great deal of property has been bought and sold in this person's name. There are three people like this. One of them was particularly close to him in Istanbul.

There is a law firm on Çay Road here. It belongs to people very close to Akın Gürlek. There are offices in Istanbul, and certain dealings are going on there. There are tip-offs pouring in like rain on this matter. As concrete evidence comes in, we will lay it out piece by piece and sit down to discuss it again. But first, he needs to explain today's situation to me.

Regarding the gang formation in the judiciary — you had previously disclosed this as well — you said that through two lawyers known to the public by name, pressure and blackmail were applied to both detained defendants and their families, forcing them to give statements, to give false statements. You had also said that in return, very large sums of money were demanded. You touched on this topic today. A development occurred: in the Antalya Metropolitan Municipality case, a witness-turned-informant announced that he had given false testimony. His exact words were: 'While I was in detention, they told me my wife was in a difficult situation, so I changed my statement and said I had received money — but that never happened. May they forgive me.'

Now, doesn't even one person — even an informant — saying 'I gave false testimony' cause a case to collapse from its very foundation? Because Antalya Metropolitan Municipality Mayor Muhittin Böcek is also one of the defendants currently being tried in detention. At the very least, doesn't it require releasing him from pre-trial detention? But as I said, the first part is even more critical. Doesn't an informant's confession of having given false testimony shake the case to its core?

It does. And let me add this much: first, just as Antalya collapsed like this, when the first informant's statement in Istanbul was referred to — when the statement that came up in the question-and-answer session last week emerged — this came out: 'You said there was 25 billion liras in corruption. We ask you: what is the budget of this place? 5 billion.' Can there be 25 billion in corruption where the budget is only 5 billion? No. 'Why did you say that?' 'I didn't say that — they recorded it that way in the minutes,' and so on. Then: I didn't do this, I didn't do that.

I will tell you something that, while not overly bold a claim, is very much within the realm of possibility. Among the informants in the İBB file, there will be many people who will reckon with their own conscience and use similar statements. Up to now, as far as I know, seven informants have said that during their interrogation, things were written down beyond what I said. When it came to signing, they were told 'Sign and you go free, otherwise you go back to Silivri' — and that is why they had to sign. It is highly probable that these statements will come to light in the upcoming İBB case, in the İBB trial proceedings. If those 7 become 77, I won't be surprised. Because I heard from the victims of the system, from those who were subjected to it, how the system works.

Let me first say what you said. There is something so clear: Yener Toruner is an İBB detainee. A lawyer named Mehmet Yıldırım starts pestering Yener Toruner's son. He goes, comes back, goes, comes back. And he says: 'Tell your father to give a statement like this, and he'll be released.' The boy tells his family, and one day — because they might accuse him of slander and such — he records the audio and video of this. By coincidence, these recordings end up with someone, and that person gets Mehmet Yıldırım on the phone with someone who claims to be a prosecutor. Mehmet Yıldırım speaks with the person who claims to be a prosecutor. There is a recording of this. What did I do? I gathered all of this and rushed it to the HSK. I said: look, listen to this boy, listen to this family, pursue this, question this lawyer. But let me now tell you what happened.

I said this at a rally in Istanbul — it was in Bayrampaşa, I think — standing on top of the bus: 'Tomorrow we will go and file a complaint. A lawyer is making such an offer to the son of a detainee,' I said. That night — note that I did not give the detainee's name — they first went to the son's home in Artvin, couldn't find him; his mother said he was in Artvin. They tried to detain him in Artvin. He went to the Artvin police station himself, came down from Şavşat to Artvin, and was brought to Istanbul. I had not named the detainee, had not named his son — I only said 'a lawyer.' The prosecutor knew who it was. Somehow. Then we named the lawyer. That lawyer was caught trying to flee abroad from Antalya Kepez. He was caught at a checkpoint in Kepez. He was going to try to flee from Antalya to the Greek islands — in someone else's car, having left his own mobile phone in Istanbul. They brought this lawyer in and placed him under house arrest. In recent days they lifted the house arrest. Yet, for instance, Mehmet Murat Çalık is wrestling with death, wrestling with cancer, and they won't give him house arrest. They won't give anyone house arrest.

"WE MUST SEE THAT THE INFORMANT SYSTEM IS AN EXTRAORDINARILY FLAWED INSTITUTION THAT DEVOURS RIGHTS, VIOLATES PEOPLE'S DUES, AND SLANDERS INNOCENT PEOPLE"

The lawyer has not disclosed who he was speaking with. They call the lawyer a 'fugitive,' the gendarmerie catches him, and they also go after the person the lawyer was in contact with. The prosecutor is doing this.

The other case: Murat Kapki has a very clear statement on record. He had it documented that Mücahit Birinci said, 'Give 2,000,000 dollars and you walk free.' AK Party expelled Mücahit from the party. The prosecutor summoned him for questioning but did not even place him under house arrest. Mücahit Bey is being tried and going about his life freely.

This is where we stand. Who is behind all this? What is this İBB stock exchange? And the whole point here — I said it once more today, and I will keep saying it without tiring — is this: they tell people: 'You carried out this tender.' I did. 'You received the order from Ekrem.' I never met with Ekrem Bey. I work here, Ekrem Bey works there.

I was a successful finance professional. They put me in charge of İBB Medya A.Ş. I prepared proper, sound specifications. And whoever deserved the tenders, they got them. If you say that, it won't do — you're not giving the statement I want. Then: who will look after your child? My mother is elderly, she will. My wife — I don't have a wife. Oh for goodness' sake, think it over carefully. Come on, sign it, take your child, go home. If you don't sign, goodbye to you. They think Silivri — they say Silivri — you go to Silivri once; then they say your transfer has come through. Off to Gebze. Another one to Afyon, another to Düzce, another to Bolu. They scatter all the women like this. You will become an informant, you will become an informant.

That is why we must recognise that this informant system is an extraordinarily flawed institution that devours rights, violates people's dues, and slanders innocent people. First in Istanbul last week, and today as you pointed out in Antalya, this institution has been shown to be wrong from the very first button — from the very first button.

Now let's turn to Silivri. The İBB trial began in Silivri last week. Of course it couldn't get started right away — there were disputes between the panel and Ekrem Bey, a whole host of other issues arose, and in the end a statement was made about lawyers not being allowed in. You said today that won't happen. Where does that stand?

We are faced with a thoroughly messy, unprofessional, incompetent, and unqualified situation. You had strongly criticised the panel even before the trial began. We are facing a terrifying panel. Let me say once more about the panel: to be on the panel of a Heavy Criminal Court in Istanbul, they say you need roughly 20 years on either side and close to 30 years of seniority as a presiding judge. It has always been this way. The colleagues sitting on either side have been judges for 1 year and 9 months, 10 months. They drew the lot 1 year and 9 months ago. Normally, one would be in Artvin's Şavşat, another in Tokat's Zile, handing down correct rulings that won't be overturned by the Court of Cassation, accumulating 5, 10 years there, moving to bigger cities, bigger cities, filling up 20 years — and only then becoming worthy of that bench. But these colleagues have been known for 1 year — clearly this case was going to land in Court No. 40.

In Court No. 40 there is a panel; the presiding judge is Akın Bey's close companion, and in place of the other two they installed 2 new judges with 1 year and 9 months of experience. Together with the current presiding judge's 7 years of seniority — when 10 is required — they counted two-thirds of it from his time as a lawyer, and seated three judges there with a combined seniority of 10 years and 8 months. They showed up on the first day. They were told: 'Be self-confident.' Now, in the old days judges and prosecutors used to put on their robes at the entrance of the courthouse — lawyers too. That's how the elders tell it. Fine, you came in, you put it on in the room, whatever. He comes in without his robe. Like this, hands here, looking at a hall. Showing his belly, scratching himself, stretching. Across from him are people who have been unjustly held for a year. They are putting on a show of force for them. He starts speaking, puts one arm halfway through the sleeve, finishes his sentence, puts the other arm halfway through. That's how it starts — with this kind of swagger.

When it was already a 2.1 percent chance of landing there, we had known for a year it would land here, and they specially arranged the panel too. This panel faces, of course, politicians of many years' standing, people who have been inside for a year and have built up their case. Procedure comes before substance. A procedural debate opens. The defendant requests the floor on a procedural matter — it is not granted. When it is not granted, he gets flustered. He mistakes the door, bumps into the other one. Goes to the other door. Does goodness knows what — and then what have we learned from all this? He now comes in with his robe already on, having put it on in the room.

Now, once — as I mentioned a moment ago — the panel whose combined seniority from all three was expected to be 70–75 years has actual experience of 10 months, 10 years and 8 months, and 10 months, there is an inability to manage proceedings, and he keeps saying so himself. Even while I was there, I heard it three times: 'I cannot manage this hearing. I cannot manage it like this.' Well, of course you can't manage it like this. You have to manage it according to the rules.

Look at what we all expected on the first day: it would start with a roll call. He didn't take a roll call. He went straight in. Then a woman asked for the floor, saying she was a lawyer. He gave her the floor, she spoke for 10 minutes. She said a great many things. Then he asked, 'Whose lawyer were you?' She said, 'Nobody's.' 'Why?' 'I came as an observer,' she said. Come on, brother — if you had done a roll call, you would have noted down every lawyer with their three assigned clients. You would know who is present and who isn't. At the very least, when you first gave her the floor, if you had said 'Let me take your name — whose lawyer are you?' and she had said 'I'm nobody's lawyer,' you would have said 'That won't do.' If she had lied and said 'I'm so-and-so's lawyer,' the person would have said 'I have no such lawyer.' That's how amateurish this is.

And that is why such absurd, chaotic things keep happening. Then they put the blame on the CHP. Now, if you give the floor to a random person who walks in off the street claiming to be a lawyer, and then later find out she isn't anyone's lawyer, and the courtroom goes 'ooh' and laughs or goes 'aah' — you say 'No, do such and such.' These things just don't work.

Now, how does a good teacher establish control of a classroom? A bad teacher — the one who shouts the most doesn't silence the class. The teacher who can also crack a reasonable joke while still being a deterrent is the one who silences the class. If you shout too much, the class becomes brazen. If you're too soft, the class won't be disciplined. But if you come to that class, do what a teacher is supposed to do, and act fairly, the class will treat you fairly in return. That is the situation here.

Two: on the first day, because he didn't give Ekrem Bey the floor, things got turbulent. On the second day he gave him the floor. Then he let the press in, then moved them to a different spot, sent them to a blind spot — and that caused another problem. The other day, one of our colleagues again — due to this judge's inexperience — look, he says this: MPs will sit here, lawyers will sit there. Now the reason MPs want to move to that side is that MPs are sitting in the area reserved for families. As that area empties, another child will come, another family member will come — that's the issue. He said: 'MPs who are lawyers, those who are barristers, may sit where the lawyers are.' And they don't let anyone without a robe through the door. One of our colleagues put on his robe, went in, and sat down. Due to the judge's inexperience, he says: 'Lawyers, come over here and sit.' The law states the following. The Bar Association Law also states it, and there are activities incompatible with being an MP under the constitution and internal regulations. An MP who was previously a lawyer cannot practise law until their term ends. Why? Because of the separation of legislative, executive, and judicial powers. How can you, as a representative of the legislature, come and defend someone before the judiciary? You can't. You can't even defend yourself — it's not allowed. That is why they say you may not be present here.

So normally it's an area where he shouldn't be in the first place, but due to the judge's inexperience our colleague went and sat down. This time he said 'Get up.' And our colleague said 'You seated me here, why am I getting up?' After a 6–7 minute standoff, he adjourned the court again. The matter was referred to me. I know our MP was in the right, but so that the issue wouldn't be framed that way, I said: 'Colleagues, from now on, whatever amateurish thing he does, you do what you know is right and let the court proceed.' Because what we want is for our detained colleagues first and foremost to give their initial statements and for the detention review to come. What will happen at the detention review? For example, there's Esra — for this last espionage charge they're seeking one year, one year. Not a single day of it is served. She'll give her statement and be released. Aykut Erdoğdu — what he served has been worth it compared to what he'll get. I don't know, my brother Sıtkı and the others — all of those who are about to give statements will give their statements and be tried without detention. For this reason, I — in fact, I was hoping that all of this would move very quickly, that there would be a detention review before the holiday.

Well, do you think the government has an interest in slowing down these hearings? Such interpretations are being made.

Well, looking at the judge's current state — taking the statements of only 4 people in 6 days — that's how it looks from the outside. I don't think that's what's happening. Not out of good faith — they also want a conviction to come out as soon as possible so they can blame them. So it's not that... I see the judge's situation like this: an inexperienced driver. He stalls the car with a bang. 'I'm giving up, I won't drive, I can't do this job,' he says and runs off, then comes back the next morning and sits down again. This man has stepped away from the wheel. He won't be able to drive this car. I am calling on the HSK from here. They need to do something very clear. They should appoint three of Turkey's most senior heavy criminal court presiding judges — with sufficient seniority for this matter — to this court. Yes, the principle of the natural judge will once again be trampled underfoot, but they have already trampled it. At least no one should have to keep putting up with this amateurishness.

STATEMENT ON THE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST AKIN GÜRLEK

By the way, colleagues mentioned it in passing. Akın Gürlek had said he would file a criminal complaint. They have prepared the complaint. Tomorrow morning, at five past nine, our lawyers will have uploaded it to UYAP and delivered it to the relevant offices."

Now, of course there is March 18, there is the March 19 anniversary, but before we close this chapter — a short while ago you gave an interview to journalist Murat Yetkin. And you said there, regarding your detained presidential candidate Ekrem İmamoğlu: 'If they are so afraid of Ekrem Bey, if they are so afraid of his street performance, they should at least put him under house arrest.' Now, this is the first time we have heard something like this. Do you genuinely believe that with this kind of trial — that is, a trial without detention, in the form of house arrest — tensions would actually ease? Or do you expect what you said to have a concrete counterpart?

First of all, there is a reservation at the beginning of that sentence. I say: 'If for a moment I were to pull myself down to their level of disregarding the law, if I were to look at it the way they do' — that is how the sentence begins. Why? Because are politicians the ones making this decision? Yes, politicians are making the decision. If I too were to become someone who disregards the law like them, issues instructions to the judiciary, or discusses this matter politically, I would just blurt that out.

What I am saying is this: if they are that afraid... Under normal circumstances, we have been talking about this for a while. You can ask Murat Yetkin, because I was also with him... He said: 'Do you think they would grant a trial without detention?' I said, 'They won't.' Because all the AKP members we have spoken to, the AKP members talking around us, are apparently saying: 'If we allow a trial without detention, this time he will get on top of the bus and we will never be able to get him down.' That's right, that's what they say, Murat Bey told me. Murat Bey, as a journalist, and also of the AKP... Yes, if Ekrem İmamoğlu is released, he will start campaigning.

I said: if they are that afraid, let them put him under house arrest. He won't get on top of the bus; we will defend him from the top of the bus — but at least this isolation, this cruelty, will end. We want a trial without detention for all our colleagues. We want a trial without detention for Ekrem İmamoğlu too, but they are afraid that 'if he is released he will campaign.' Since whatever the judge says goes anyway — at least let him be reunited with his family. Instead of sleeping on concrete in that 12-square-metre cell, instead of standing in that tiny courtyard, let him be at home, in a more comfortable situation. I said this out of a very humane concern. That is one thing.

Second: I believe that after this testimony, Ekrem İmamoğlu should normally be tried without detention. I believe all our colleagues should be tried without detention. But I also believe that the period leading up to this testimony constitutes a very serious rights violation. But will they do it? They won't. But if, instead of a trial without detention, instead of a detention measure, they are going to impose house arrest — another type of measure — I say that is better than the current situation. I said this in a very humane way, in an extremely...

"WHAT WOULD I BE NEGOTIATING?"

Some people say: 'So Özgür Özel is negotiating?' If I were negotiating, would I negotiate through Murat Yetkin? Would I conduct negotiations via Murat Yetkin? If we were involved in that kind of negotiation, back-channel diplomacy would be at work, and so on and so forth. I mean, what negotiation? I am extremely... It breaks my heart too — leaving Ekrem Başkan there every Wednesday, or now apparently Fridays, whatever it will be, and walking away — it breaks my heart too, leaving my friend there. I said it in an entirely humane way. What would I be negotiating?

Well, you are asking, and I said it there too: would tensions ease? Now, first of all, there are 107 detainees there, aren't there? That's not wrong — there are 107 detainees. For the 107 detainees, those who are not detained are excused from hearings. He may not have issued a formal ruling to that effect, but he said it out loud. He said, 'I will not force anyone to come; those who are not detained may not attend.' He said that even without formally declaring an exemption, he would apply it in practice.

On top of that, someone comes for each of them, rightfully so. Who comes? Their mother, father, sister, spouse, child... And if three people come for each of them, subtract 300 from that, you have 700 people. The tension created by 700 people in and around the courtroom would ease right away. And then we also provide organisational support to them — the Republican People's Party organisations. If someone from Bayrampaşa is detained, Bayrampaşa comes to show support; everyone does. Why do we all go there? Automatically, if you try them without detention, the tension in that courtroom drops, my friend. Tensions in Turkey drop too. That is what I am saying.

This is not a commitment; it is a forecast. If Ekrem İmamoğlu is detained, I respond one way; if he is being tried without detention, I respond differently. Now, in İzmir, our former Metropolitan Mayor was tried on 700 years' worth of charges — tried without detention. I went and sat beside him one day. Did Kemal Bey go at the time? He probably didn't... He didn't attend the hearing, but he expressed his support. I sat beside him one day, another colleague another day... He was tried, acquitted, and returned. He was already at his post. What tension are you going to create there?

İzmir, the current... By the way, I tried to reach his wife but couldn't; I extend my condolences to Şenol Aslanoğlu — he lost his brother. I wrote a letter; I will have it delivered to his lawyer now. There is Tunç Başkan, there is Heval, and Şenol Bey has gone back inside — Şenol Başkan. The detention of these colleagues of ours is an egregious mistake. They carried out a backup detention. They switched from detention to non-detention in the first file they charged, then detained them again on a second file. On the first day in İzmir, 155 people were detained. An indictment was written within 10 days. I am not saying everything is going smoothly, mind you. Most of them were switched to trial without detention. 30 remained, then 8 remained, then 3 remained. Everyone was released from the first case; they made three more arrests on a second matter. So what kind of tension is there in İzmir now? There is a corresponding level of tension. But if you keep 150 people detained, there will be a corresponding level of tension. That is what I am saying.

This is my view — if there is a trial without detention, that is... They are saying all sorts of nonsensical things. Yesterday, some accounts — unconscious ones, that is, certain FETÖ-linked accounts — were feeding some people with absurd, self-styled intelligence. And those people were supposedly going to do something, get ratings or whatever... Apparently I was with Bülent Arınç...

DID HE NEGOTIATE WITH BÜLENT ARINÇ?

Let me tell you what actually happened. I was elected party leader. I have been in political competition with Bülent Arınç in Manisa since 2009. If you look at it — from this angle — I am the winner of that competition too. From this angle it is mine; don't misunderstand, I am not saying this to put Bülent Bey down: when I entered politics, the AKP was getting 60 percent in Manisa. Before the 2009 election in which I ran as a candidate — in the last election we had entered — the CHP's vote share was 6 percent. In the election in which I ran as a candidate, in my first candidacy, I got 14 percent. The AKP was getting 60 percent. Today I got 60 percent in Manisa.

So in our competition with Mr. Bülent Arınç from 2009 to today — if you frame it as an AKP-CHP competition — when Bülent Arınç's AKP was at 60 percent, it is now at around 30, 20 percent... The CHP has risen to 60 percent. Some people know very well — 'Does this dialogue do harm, does it do whatever?' — let them look at the Manisa, Soma election results: those who declared Soma on social media every Sunday evening, 60 percent. What were they saying to the people of Soma? They were talking all sorts of nonsense about them. And I was saying: 'Anyone who talks about Soma talks about me. I consider it said to my own family.' What happened to Soma? The lawyer of the Soma case, our closest friend Sercan Okur, became mayor of Soma with 60 percent of the vote. We got 60 percent in the metropolitan area. So please, let them allow me to know a little bit about how to do politics in Manisa. That is the first thing.

Second, Bülent Bey and I are in this kind of competition, but when I became a member of parliament in 2011 — or it may have been 2007 — he called me along with Erkan Akçay from the MHP and others, in his capacity as Deputy Prime Minister. He said: 'Is there anything I can do?' We have a gentlemanly relationship. One day he had a funeral, and a great injustice was being done. After I attended that funeral, he himself expressed on television that a special bond of affection had formed.

I had just been elected party leader; imagine — a founding member of the AKP and a former Deputy Prime Minister and Speaker of Parliament got up and came to my office to congratulate me. And what was I to say? 'Welcome, you honour me.' He came. One brother of mine passed away, his son came to the funeral, and he himself came to offer condolences. Another brother of mine passed away, his son came to the funeral, and he himself wanted to pay a condolence visit but missed it that day due to a busy schedule. He called... I had just been elected party leader again. When he mentioned a visit, I said: 'It is not for you to come to me; this time I will come to visit you.' He said, 'By all means.' We even exchanged messages about it on WhatsApp. I said: 'You had requested an appointment to congratulate me; you came to me; you stood by us in good times and bad. On the occasion of Ramadan, let me come to you.'

If we had met in my office, would anyone have known about the first meeting? No. But if a party leader walks through the parliament building, that is news. It cannot be hidden from journalists; they know: 'Özgür Bey is coming to parliament today, his arrival is known — what will he do? He will visit Bülent Arınç.' If I wanted to meet Bülent Arınç in secret, I could meet him in 1,500 different places, in 1,500 different ways.

I went with Gökhan Günaydın and my colleagues; we paid the visit.

Did Gökhan Bey step out himself?

Well, it wasn't that he stepped out on his own. I accompanied Kemal Bey for nine years as deputy parliamentary group chair in parliament. The party leader walks through parliament with two deputy group chairs on either side. He goes into the meeting; the deputy group chairs wait in the anteroom. Nothing could be more natural than that. It was not a private meeting or a three-way meeting. There was no reason to tell Gökhan Bey 'Don't come in' for him to step out. Gökhan Bey shook hands at the door. Bülent Arınç said 'Please come in, Bülent Bey' — I went through. Bülent Bey turned to Gökhan Bey and said 'I am right here, sir,' and took his place.

Look, let me not be unfair to Bülent Bey here either: in the last five minutes of the meeting, as I was getting up to leave, he said: 'Gökhan Bey is outside. Let me find an excuse to invite him in so we can sit together for five minutes.' He called him in, asked Gökhan Bey: 'Is there press outside?' 'Of course there is,' he said. 'How shall we explain this — let us get your view,' and so on — he used that as a pretext, courteously invited him in, and they sat together.

Then we parted. On the way out, we made that simple, brief statement you know about. Apparently Fatih Atik from TGRT had asked Bülent Arınç about it. And Bülent Arınç had not told him anything about what was said inside. There really isn't much to the content anyway. But the things he wrote... 'That simply cannot be.'

Then your colleague Aytunç Erkin Bey called me. He had first written on WhatsApp, then called as I got off the plane. He said: 'They are saying such and such, such and such.' I told him: 'Honestly, Aytunç Bey, all of it is wrong, but it is not my place to deny it. You call Bülent Bey.' Because otherwise — there was also some tension after the Selahattin Demirtaş–Bülent Arınç meeting — so let me be careful about that. Because if I deny it, you know, it would look as though I was denying the other party. Am I going to deny the journalist? If I deny it, I end up denying Bülent Arınç. But if he denies it, he is denying the person who wrote the story. And Bülent Bey did write a full page to Aytunç Erkin — he said 'Shame on you,' he said 'What nonsense,' and he denied from start to finish everything Fatih Atik had written. I don't want Fatih Atik — a journalist — to have things said to him like that...

But it happened — so what? Because TGRT has turned into a pit of slander. Every kind of slander is thrown there. Apparently former CHP members are being brought on, paid to do programmes, saying all sorts of outrageous things... Today yet another one — a former TGRT person now somewhere else... With so many things going on, I don't think Akın Gürlek would fabricate something in a situation like this. If you know so much, go ahead and take it — you're a journalist; the ID is right there, whatever else is right there.

But on the Bülent Arınç matter — then, with FETÖ-linked filling, someone went and claimed that Bülent Arınç was sent to Özgür Bey by Tayyip Erdoğan to mediate or whatever... Come on, my friend — Bülent Bey and I talked about Manisa. We talked about what they say we talked about, and we did not talk about what they say we didn't talk about. We absolutely did not get into those topics, and we won't. Besides, if Tayyip Erdoğan were going to send me an intermediary, he would hardly use Bülent Bey for that. I mean, instead of a profile like Bülent Bey, he would use someone who is more active in politics today, someone close to him, someone close to me. There is no such thing. If Erdoğan has such a need, we can handle it through open communication anyway.

Have you ever thought or sensed that someone like that has come — an intermediary, so to speak, from the AKP, from President Erdoğan? Because we know you spoke with Devlet Bahçeli. Even on the Night of Power... Did you sense any intent in that?

Let me say this much. Look — please don't take this personally — but this theory, because it keeps being raised: it is such a nonsensical theory. It is like Kenan Evren sending an intermediary to Süleyman Demirel, Bülent Ecevit, Alparslan Türkeş. Why would a coup-maker send an intermediary after staging a coup? If he were going to send one, he wouldn't stage the coup. The man staged a coup against us. On one side there is the party congress case and so on — they are trying to keep us occupied on one front.

It has no value whatsoever — I am saying it again. It is to make the party argue about process. The man goes from judge to deputy minister, from deputy minister to chief prosecutor, from chief prosecutor to minister. These are people who have lost all restraint. The man is the impartial Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor at 23:59, and by midnight he becomes a minister. The next day, at 3 o'clock, Seda Hanım — Akın Gürlek — tells AKP provincial chairs: 'I will continue working for our party.' What intermediary would he send? If he sent an intermediary, I would say: 'Are you joking?' What intermediary? 'Go and convince your party leader, have him drop this matter,' I would say. What am I supposed to do at the end of this mediation? Have I done something?

I would understand it if I were doing something to him and he said: 'He is wronging me — I want him to stop, and in return I will...' What am I doing to him other than seeking my rights?

At the end of the trial process, do you see any possibility of Mr. Ekrem İmamoğlu being released, acquitted, and continuing in politics as a presidential candidate?

Well, this trial would not bar a candidacy in the first place. It would not bar a candidacy for this reason: in the best-case scenario for this trial — he says he will take the testimony of 100 people over the next one and a half months. It is not clear when the second hearing will be held, but given that this session will end in early May, let's say the second session is held in late June or July. There, with 400 people — who knows how many months that will take. Then the examination of evidence, the collection of requests, defences, questioning of the prosecution, final statements. It is very clear that this will not be concluded in less than a year. Then there is the appeals stage, which normally takes 2 to 2.5 years. The election will have passed by then.

Let's say it moves forward — there is the Court of Cassation stage. The Court of Cassation takes 3 to 4 years. So this conviction will not be finalised before the election. That is why it is not a bar to candidacy. What could bar a candidacy? They are trying with a number of minor cases — the so-called idiot case, that case, this case. The diploma case has also started. I will address that now. If they win one of those and the appeals court finalises the sentence, perhaps something like that could happen. There are such attempts, but in that area too, one fell through, another came up, and so on.

The key issue here is the diploma. Because they annulled the diploma by administrative decision. We applied to the Regional Administrative Court and requested the annulment of this action. They rejected it. It is now at the appeals stage. We requested a stay of execution from the appeals court. The stay of execution was rejected; it will be examined on the merits. If our application is not accepted at the appeals stage, it will go to the Council of State. And the Council of State... In all likelihood, by the time of the candidacy, it will have gone to the Council of State. We will request a stay of execution. If the relevant chamber of the Council of State grants a stay of execution, he can be a candidate; if not, he cannot. So the main area of risk and possibility is here. This is where we need to look.

In the diploma case.

The diploma case. It is not for nothing, my friend. He was going to be taken in on the 19th — and there is a four-day detention period — with the primary election on the 23rd. So the first objective was to prevent him from entering the primary. That is, to block the presidential candidacy before it was finalised. And the night before that, they annulled the diploma. So nothing will come of this from the trial side. When I say nothing will come from the trial, I mean a conviction will come from this court acting on instructions, but the finalisation will not arrive in time. Or they may also be thinking this way: if a sudden snap election becomes necessary — one they want or that circumstances require — by then the conviction still won't have been finalised; it will still be very new, still being heard. That is why they annulled the diploma.

March 18 is the first anniversary of the diploma annulment tomorrow. March 19 is the anniversary of Mr. Ekrem İmamoğlu's detention, and tomorrow evening you will be holding a major rally at Saraçhane.

Yes, tomorrow evening I will be sleeping at Saraçhane.

Will you be sleeping in the same room you slept in at Saraçhane?

Yes, yes. That one...

The room you slept in for 7 days.

Let me spend one more night in the room I slept in for 7 days. I mean, on the anniversary, tomorrow we will be living out that one year — as part of experiencing that one year, I...

While living through those 24 hours, I will spend tomorrow night there. For all of us — the anniversary is the 19th of the month. The anniversary of what? The coup attempt. But the diploma date is the 18th.

Holding it on the eve of the 19th, on the night before, has certain difficulties as everyone knows — the next day is a holiday morning and everyone will be heading off. Also, we are Wednesday people; the coup happened on a Wednesday, the first rally at Saraçhane was on a Wednesday, the last rally at Saraçhane was on a Wednesday, and we have been holding rallies every Wednesday for a year. We have reached the 99th. We are holding it again on a Wednesday evening. We are bridging the 18th to the 19th. Of course, in some places we said, shall we all bridge the 18th to the 19th together? The rally will last until morning — well, a rally doesn't actually last until morning. Let me be clear about that. Especially since tomorrow Galatasaray's match starts at 11. At 11, so if we hold the rally, that would be a problem. We intend to wrap things up by around 11. So on the night bridging the 18th to the 19th, we will start the rally at a reasonable hour, at 20:30. There will be students from Boğaziçi University, from Istanbul Technical University, and from Istanbul University who were involved in those events. There will be a recital by students from Boğaziçi whose activity spaces were seized and whose club rooms were closed. We will recall the poems we read throughout the year. We will sing the songs we sang throughout the year — for instance, Onur Akın will sing 'Bekle Bizi İstanbul.' İlkay Hanım will come and sing 'Buğday Tanesi,' if they are so kind. Zülfü Bey was going to sing 'Yiğidim Aslanım,' but he has an overseas engagement and also a private health matter, an appointment made in advance — Sevingül Bahadır will come and sing instead. With poems and songs like these, we will commemorate the year and show that we are standing tall on the first anniversary of the coup, bridging the 18th to the 19th. I hope it will be a significant crowd. It will be a significant night. Then we will conclude the evening at a reasonable hour. Our friends, our organization, and our MPs will help ensure the area disperses calmly and peacefully. I will then retire to my room at Saraçhane. First, we will probably watch Galatasaray's match from there — we'll watch the full match from there. After that, I will spend the night there. The next day, on the 19th, at Saraçhane — Halk TV also expressed a wish to do a live link from there. We will mark the 19th there for Halk TV, Sözcü TV, other television channels, and foreign press organizations. Tomorrow night is our iftar — tomorrow is Martyrs and Veterans Day, as it is the anniversary of Çanakkale, March 18. We will have an iftar in Istanbul with the families of martyrs, and then come and hold the rally. On the 19th, we will hold an iftar with Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality staff, municipal council members, and the families of our friends who are in detention. After holding the final iftar with the families on the 19th, and after completing on the 19th with a family iftar what we began on the 18th, I will leave Saraçhane and go to my hometown of Manisa. I will be in Manisa for the holiday.

The 100th rally will be in Çanakkale. But not this Saturday — this Saturday is a public holiday, as you know. The following Saturday we will hold the 100th rally in Çanakkale. The rallies will continue.

It is simply not possible to stop the provincial rallies. We have more than 30 provinces waiting in line that we have made commitments to. In every province we visit, we hold the largest rally in that province's history. At first there were those who tried to belittle this. You know, Yozgat appeared — it was a very iconic, very different rally. We filled the square in Konya that Erdoğan has avoided for the last two elections, and so on, and most recently we went to Karaman. We held one of the largest rallies ever seen in Karaman's history. This movement is growing and continuing. The fact that such an action by an opposition party — a party marching toward power — has, in quotation marks, become popular, that it is in demand, that people are saying 'I will be there too,' is very important. In the past, for a rally in Karaman, you would bring people in from Mersin. Now there is no need for that anymore.

Mersin says 'they came to us anyway, they'll come again' and doesn't do that anymore. Karaman says 'I'll fill this square myself, nobody needs to come.' That's where we are. We are not abandoning night rallies entirely, but we are looking for a new format. In Istanbul, night rallies continue with truly legendary crowds. The last rally in Pendik surpassed the previous one. People were asking whether the Pendik rallies would fizzle out, but the last one we held there was even bigger — we are looking for a format for that. We are discussing useful and creative ideas.

Actually, what I was most curious about was the action plan going forward. While shaping what comes next, when you look back at this past year — to your fellow travelers — do you ask yourselves: what did we do, how much did we do, what did we fall short on, what should we have done? When you look back at this past year, yes, you waged a very effective struggle, but was there anything you said 'we didn't do that' or 'we left that incomplete'?

Well, look, I don't think we have any shortcomings in terms of activism and the dimension of the struggle. Nobody does, really. In fact, people who think carefully about these things tell me so. You know, Fatih Bey — get well soon, he had brain surgery — he also says, 'Özgür Bey,' he says, 'I won't lie to you,' he says, 'I thought things would slow down in the summer,' he told me that many times in prison. Many friends said 'okay, we got through the summer, but this won't work in winter.' These efforts have come a long way through a spirit of struggle and activism. It's not that we fell short, but there is something we need to do. People expect us — yes, you are good at the struggle, but they want an answer to the question of how you will govern this country. The answer to that was the presidential candidacy office and the evolution of the party program into a government program. You followed the launch of that. Some people found the timing wrong only because the Iran war broke out that day, but it was a meeting announced well in advance and we had to hold it with participants from all across Turkey. But now our organization, unlike last year — last year it was about 80%, 70–80% struggle and 30% explaining our own activities. Now, without abandoning the struggle, but also explaining how we will govern Turkey. In particular, we need to explain extensively in the field how we will solve the problems of all vulnerable groups in society — especially the basic citizenship income we have proposed for housewives, especially for those with no income at all, and social insurance for housewives, meaning the right to insurance coverage and retirement. This year must be the year in which, alongside resisting oppression, the march toward power is felt most clearly.

An operation was carried out in Bolu, Tanju Bey was arrested. Then came Kuşadası. You also reacted strongly to Kuşadası. Because of Özlem Çerçioğlu's diet payments.

They are making payments in three installments.

Yes, so these are also ongoing at the same time. What would you like to say specifically about both Bolu and Kuşadası?

First of all, I will thunder at Akın Gürlek again when I get back to this, but the Ministry of Justice is being pushed into a disgraceful conduct it has never stooped to in its entire existence. I am strongly warning him about this. This was happening during the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor's tenure. All journalists know it. Today we also spoke with friends we talked to after the press briefing. No letterhead, statements first to the pro-government press — but even they share them with each other in groups. Information notes are being sent from the Ministry of Justice. There is a shameless individual named Furkan. We know it is this shameless Furkan who is doing this. Akın Gürlek used him in Istanbul and has now brought this shameless person with him to Ankara. The information notes being circulated are such that only Akit can use them as-is. You know that Ak it newspaper — those Akits use them verbatim. Apart from Akit, even the stomachs of other pro-government media cannot handle the disgrace. A foundation established by Mayor Tanju, the money collected for the foundation, the scholarships given, what went in and what came out — all on record. There is a court case. They are writing lies based on what that shameless Furkan writes. That wasn't enough — first he wrote lies about the scholarships, that wasn't enough. Shamelessly and without embarrassment, they are sending out below-the-belt, world-class lies about alleged romantic affairs... They are sending out for publication certain blackmail and dirty business matters that Mayor Tanju has filed complaints about and of which his wife is aware. This is the Ministry of Justice. The Ministry of Justice. You have been appointed, by some stroke of fate, to a position that is supposed to be the guarantor of the establishment of justice. At the very least — it's the first rule — at the very least, do no harm. It's clear you won't be of any benefit; at least do no harm. Do not use that operative you brought with you — that person named Furkan — in these matters. You are the Minister of Justice.

Is that the name from the Directorate of Communications?

He was there. He was there during the handover. He is the person involved in every kind of disgrace.

Now, let me say this once about that matter. Mayor Tanju will be tried, and at the end of this trial he will be acquitted. Because they know this, they are resorting to character assassination — he needs to be tried quickly and without arrest.

Second, in Aydın, Ömer Günel — why is the case in Istanbul? Are the prosecutors of Aydın, the prosecutors of Kuşadası, sitting idle? No. How are you taking it to Istanbul? They claim money was being transferred to Istanbul from dealings in Aydın. Nothing is left — Ömer Günel will collect money from dealings in Kuşadası and transfer it. Is there anyone who says they gave a single penny? Is there anyone who carried it, anyone who transferred it, is there any proof at the destination? No.

What is the purpose? The purpose, dear viewers, is this: a lie to connect it to Istanbul. They say, we will carry out this operation. Why? Because you couldn't carry out this operation in Aydın. Why? Because a former AK Party MP from Aydın brought me two blue folders. He said, 'These were the files I was tracking in Aydın against Özlem Çerçioğlu — damn it, these too came to nothing.' He said, 'They went and brought this woman in.' He has his own kind of outrage from his own perspective.

Because they cannot do anything to Ömer Günel in Aydın at Özlem Çerçioğlu's instigation — there is no evidence, no proof, only slander. For the slander, they found a way from there and are running this kind of operation. Why there? Why not by summons, why an arrest? Why in detention? What is there? Is there anyone who says they gave money? Is there anyone who says they received money? Was any money seized? What is there? There is a testimony from an informant — Istanbul style. That's why I said, 'Wait, they said Kuşadası, let's see — let's look at the interrogation record, what are we being charged with, what is happening.' We looked again, and again they pulled an Istanbul job.

It is stated that the aim is to establish an autonomous zone in the conflict area for PJAK, which is described as a continuation of the PKK. How do you view this as CHP?

"First of all, it is necessary to maintain a clear and consistent line here. The Iranian regime is not one that the Republican People's Party would approve of. Why not? Not because of women's rights per se, not because of what they do to and put women through. Not because it is not a rule-of-law state, and not because it is a state with far too many rights violations. There is no secularism, there are rights violations, it is not a democratic republic. We wish Iran to be a democratic republic that respects women's rights, respects human rights, and upholds the rule of law. But this struggle must be waged by Iranian women, by Iranian youth, by Iranians themselves. Furthermore, if they are oppressing women, killing and suppressing the opposition, then international law must function here.

The world has an order like this: rights violations in one country concern all countries. Within the world order, the United Nations steps in. The necessary consultations are held, recommendations are made. If intervention is absolutely necessary — intervention in a country is the last resort — but if they are killing 3,000 people there, if they are oppressing women, and intervention is required, a peacekeeping force is sent to that country; not an occupying force, not a bomber aircraft. A peacekeeping force is sent there to establish peace.

Now instead of this, as you very aptly put it just a moment ago, in Israel's own red book, after Syria, Iran is the next target. We already know their past track record. Let me say this very clearly: the last country to want the Iran I want is Israel. That is, a democratically governed, rule-of-law-based democratic republic — Israel would be the last to want that. Because no one could contain such an Iran; a very powerful structure would emerge. That is why Israel wants Iran to remain unstable. Israel wants Iran to be divided — Baluchis in the south, other autonomous regions in the north. This is Israel's calculation.

What I am concerned about here, and what I do not find correct, is this: Trump keeps saying things like 'the Kurds will rise up,' and others say who knows what... I also think Mr. Bahçeli is taking a correct stance on this. He said there, 'Let no one see our Kurdish brothers as mercenaries.' That is why talking about 'the Kurds, the Kurds' is not the right thing. In Syria too, portraying the relatives of Kurds in Turkey as subcontractors doing something in their own countries according to American and Israeli interests is not right. I am not saying this about the PJAK structure or five or six armed Kurdish groups. But there is a careless language being used. Trump also used that careless language. I wish for Kurds in Iraq, in Syria, and in Turkey to live in peace, exercising all their rights, without oppressing others and without weapons in their hands. That is how one must look at this. They must live as equal citizens of their countries.

Here, America's missiles... 160 girl students have died. I got angry because this did not find coverage in the world press either, and I raised it while speaking in the group. As I said, a person feels a little shame. If 160 chicks died in America today in the state of Kentucky, they would say, 'What happened, 160 chicks died at once, is there an epidemic, is there a danger?' Health officials would go there, veterinarians would go. There would be concern, it would be news — 160 chicks. 160 girl students have died from an American missile, and it is not making news in America. There is such a blackout. When I said this, first someone from the House of Lords in the United Kingdom shared it, then it spread in America, it became news on Russian television, then it spread in the Gulf countries. There was an agenda of 'no chicks died, girls died.' But the matter itself is this carelessness, this recklessness.

Turkey is a great disappointment here, I am saying this openly: I supported Turkey's stance in the Russia-Ukraine war. I said it was very right that it did not take sides, that it maintained a peaceful position, that it sought to mediate, that it said 'we can hold these talks in Istanbul,' and that it took the initiative to open the grain corridor.

However, the stance on Iran is not right. Being neutral between the parties here has reached the point of siding with the powerful and the oppressor. Today, while Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez is telling America 'I will not let you use my bases' and withdrawing his ambassador from Israel, defying both America and Israel — the most-watched video on TikTok and Facebook was one filmed by a fellow citizen on the Black Sea. He says, 'Our ummah has been left without a guardian, the leader of the ummah has become Pedro Sánchez, ours don't have this stance.' These days we are not telling anyone to 'enter the war on Iran's side.' But a much clearer stance must be taken against what America and Israel are doing to Iran.

Today's question is about reports that America wants to use its bases in Turkey, at least for refueling aircraft. We should already be closed to such an offer — they need to say 'if you don't want to hear an answer you won't like, don't ask a question that has no place.' They need to cut this off at the pass. Otherwise, they will either drag Turkey into the war, or they will make Trump an enemy of Turkey.

The deal that Turkey's Justice and Development Party and Erdoğan struck with Trump's son in Istanbul — and the meeting in Washington — in pursuit of their own interests, involving 'let's buy 300 Boeings that day, let's do this, let's buy expensive LNG from you, let's impose tariffs on Chinese goods, let's zero out tariffs on American goods, and let's give you rare earth elements' — is a dirty deal. It is selling out Turkey's interests to Trump.

You don't buy 300 aircraft from America — 150 of them are bought from Europe. If you are going to buy 150 Boeings, you will also buy 150 Airbuses. Turkish Airlines maintains this balance; both for the health of the fleet and for maintaining relations with both sides. This is clear; Turkey's traditional foreign policy flows this way.

What does the American ambassador say to you? Tom Barrack says, 'Trump is a smart man.' 'A smart man, it never occurred to me. He is giving Erdoğan what he doesn't have, and he will take everything from him.' What doesn't he have? 'Legitimacy,' he says. Why? He lost the last election in Turkey. Besides, the basic definition of legitimacy is not winning an election — it is governing in accordance with the law, governing in accordance with universal law. Because he has abandoned these, he knows he has no legitimacy here. Trump will give him legitimacy and will take a great deal from Turkey, he says. He is referring to rare earth elements. This is clear.

America's Secretary of State was begging Erdoğan for a 5-minute appointment. Erdoğan has held onto this remark, and even brought it up at a meeting we attended — saying something about me having 'left early for the tractor action,' speaking on behalf of everyone, saying it was wrong for me to leave — 'couldn't get a 5-minute meeting,' arrogantly. America's Secretary of State told it to your face that they were begging for a 5-minute meeting.

Under these circumstances, this submission, this legitimacy being sought from America, and this silent stance against the unjust oppression being carried out in Iran — none of this is the right stance. At the very least, he needs to speak out against the shedding of Muslim blood in Iran as much as Pedro Sánchez does.

We know that you are close to Pedro Sánchez in this sense. Will there be a joint initiative on this matter, are you in contact?

It has already happened. That is, like this: first of all, he is the president of the Socialist International and I am a vice president. In recent days, of course, with so many events happening, communication may have lagged somewhat — at our request, we quickly held an online Presidium meeting of the Socialist International. At that online meeting, we put on record both Pedro Sánchez's stance and the Socialist International's stance, and we all signed up to very important commitments on this matter. We support Pedro Sánchez's stance, as does the entire Socialist International. Additionally, we discussed once more the matter of the Socialist International going to Palestine that day. We discussed the matter of taking a strong initiative on Iran.

ÖZEL'S LUXEMBOURG STATEMENT

In today's thing, he doesn't mention it in his denial at all because he knows it's true, but... I said 'there is a yacht in Luxembourg, a yacht acquired from Luxembourg.' They say, is there a sea in Luxembourg? Luxembourg doesn't have direct sea access, but there is a very luxurious marina on the Moselle River. You know the geography of Luxembourg and the Netherlands — there are vessels that can reach the ocean via waterways. If someone wants to hide a yacht, they hide it in Luxembourg. Let us show this to the AK trolls who don't know this either. While these AK trolls troll for a pittance, the people are sailing yachts on the Moselle River.