An investigation had been opened into his judicial testimony... İmamoğlu is before the judge once again: What did he say in his statement?

Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu appeared before the judge again today as part of a new investigation opened against him. İmamoğlu, who has been in custody since March 23 as part of a corruption investigation into the IMM, testified this time on allegations that he insulted two public prosecutors during his judicial interrogation.

The new investigation initiated by the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor's Office is based on the charge of "insulting a public official due to their duty." The prosecutor's office cited the statements İmamoğlu made during his judicial interrogation as the reason.

TESTIFIED FROM SILIVRI VIA SEGBIS

İmamoğlu testified from the Marmara Prison in Silivri, Istanbul, via the Audio and Video Information System (SEGBİS). Emphasizing that he did not make any personal insults toward individuals, İmamoğlu said:

“I did not make any insults regarding the families, private lives, or honor of individuals. I offered criticism on behalf of the public against those who abuse their public office to interfere in politics. I know very well that they are trying to put not me, but the values I represent and the will of the nation on trial. However, there is one thing they have forgotten: The conscience of this nation believes in the truth, not in fabrication.”

Stating that accusations not directed at him during his police and prosecutor statements were added to the file later during the judicial interrogation, İmamoğlu drew attention to the illegalities in the process, saying, “I saw that allegations, maps, visuals, and some statements from organizations that were not directed at me at the prosecutor's office or the police station were added to the file. This picture was not a trial; it was a clear indication that I was being confronted with a pre-fabricated accusation of a crime.”

İmamoğlu said in his statement:

“The real context of this investigation has been shaped on a ground where judicial harassment has been carried out for a long time and legitimate political competition has been replaced by slander and perception operations.

The person who said 'Whoever loses Istanbul loses Turkey' during the election process, realizing that this loss was directed at their own power, used non-legal means to turn public power into a political tool and tried to postpone their inevitable end through this method.

I learned at the police station that the accusation against me was that a meeting held with an executive of a political party that has a group in Parliament was characterized as aiding a terrorist organization. Is it possible to explain with the law that they have characterized meetings held with an official of a legal party that has a group in Parliament as terrorist activity?

When the judicial interrogation began, I saw that questions that had never been asked to me before, a bunch of visuals related to a terrorist organization, maps, and statements of terrorist organization leaders were added to the documents in the referral letter, both during the police and prosecutor statements.

How should one characterize this behavior of public officials who are obliged to act with impartiality and independence while performing their profession and who use authority in the name of the Turkish Nation? Of course, the name of this is a setup; of course, the name of this is a political ambush.

When I went to the judicial interrogation, with the documents placed in front of me, not only justice but also my mind and conscience were being interrogated. Allegations, maps, visuals, and statements of organizations that I had nothing to do with, which were not directed at me at the police station or the prosecutor's office and were not even mentioned before, had been added to the file. This picture was not a trial, but a clear indication that I was being confronted with a pre-fabricated accusation of a crime.

Being associated with a serious and humiliating crime such as aiding a terrorist organization is not only an illegal attempt but also a discrediting operation targeting my life, my labor, and the sense of responsibility I carry toward my nation.

I did not make any insults regarding the families, private lives, or honor of individuals. I offered criticism on behalf of the public against those who abuse their public office to interfere in politics.

I know very well that they are trying to put not me, but the values I represent and the will of the nation on trial. However, there is one thing they have forgotten: The conscience of this nation believes in the truth, not in fabrication.”