Legal Experts Question İmamoğlu’s Indictment: “Too Many Gaps, Too Many Assumptions”

Legal scholars and judicial experts reviewing the indictment against Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu by the İstanbul Metropolitan Municipality (İBB) have raised serious concerns about its internal consistency, evidentiary basis, and overall legal coherence.

According to the analysis shared by journalist Deniz Zeyrek in Nefes, multiple lawyers examining portions of the nearly 4,000-page document highlighted contradictions in the timeline, the alleged purpose of the “bribery revenues,” and the use of phone records to establish a so-called “organizational link.”

Their assessment suggests that the case, which accuses İmamoğlu of leading a criminal organization founded in 2019, may struggle to establish clear causal and temporal connections when presented in court.

Contradictions in the Timeline and Alleged Organization

One of the most striking discrepancies, experts note, lies in the timeline of the alleged “criminal organization.”

The indictment claims that İmamoğlu established the organization in 2015, yet it simultaneously associates the case with 2019 municipal activities in İstanbul and refers to the CHP’s 38th Congress, which took place in 2023.

“This creates confusion about when the alleged crimes actually began,” said one legal source. Some testimonies suggest that organizational activities occurred in 2014, while others indicate 2015 or 2019. The crime dates are unclear, which makes the entire legal framework unstable.”

The supposed “organizational purpose” is equally ambiguous. The indictment alternates between two distinct claims: that the alleged bribe money was used either for personal enrichment or to influence CHP internal politics, such as campaign financing, media relations, and candidate selection.

Experts argue that this lack of clarity could weaken the prosecution’s argument:

“Is the alleged illicit income meant to prove a personal motive, or a political one? The indictment fails to make that distinction,” noted one lawyer.

Evidence Relies Heavily on Interpretation, Not Proof

Lawyers also questioned the indictment’s repeated use of speculative language. The word “evaluated” (değerlendirilmektedir) appears 44 times, and vague expressions such as “contrary to the ordinary flow of commerce” recur throughout.

“This indicates that the chain from suspicion to evidence to crime has not been sufficiently established,” one legal reviewer said.

In several instances, property and vehicle ownership records are cited as proof of illicit wealth. Yet, lawyers point out that rising market prices during the same period could easily account for such changes.

“Defense attorneys will argue that property value increases were consistent with general real estate inflation,” Zeyrek wrote. “The prosecution’s interpretation is not necessarily proof of wrongdoing.”

Inconsistent Use of Informants and Confessions

Another major issue concerns the credibility of informants. Most of the indictment’s core claims reportedly rest on testimonies from self-declared insiders or confessors. However, these individuals are alternately described as both ‘reliable witnesses’ and ‘opportunistic offenders’, creating an internal contradiction that may undermine the case.

Legal experts suggest that such inconsistency “could seriously damage the prosecution’s narrative” in the courtroom, where defense attorneys will question why supposedly untrustworthy sources are simultaneously treated as primary evidence.

Phone Records as Proof of ‘Organizational Links’

The indictment’s reliance on HTS (cell phone communication) records as evidence of organizational ties has also been met with skepticism.

The document reportedly treats frequent contact among journalists, businesspeople, and municipal staff as signs of “internal organizational communication.”

Legal scholars counter that such reasoning risks criminalizing professional contact:

“Work-related communication cannot automatically be labeled as conspiratorial,” one expert said. “This interpretation may not hold up before a judge.”

The “Conspiracy of Secrecy” Argument

Another controversial detail involves the prosecution’s claim that the alleged organization operated under strict secrecy, citing examples such as the use of jammers and the disabling of security cameras.

However, critics argue that these elements are used both as evidence of guilt and as justification for the lack of hard proof, creating a circular logic.

As Zeyrek summarized:

“The indictment claims the organization was too secretive to leave evidence—yet that same secrecy is presented as evidence itself. That seems more like an excuse than an argument.”

A Case Built on Interpretation Rather Than Certainty

Taken together, these inconsistencies suggest that the İBB indictment may hinge more on narrative construction than on verifiable proof. With contradictory dates, unclear motives, speculative reasoning, and overreliance on testimony and phone data, the case could face serious challenges once it reaches trial.

For legal observers, the document raises a broader question: Is this a well-founded corruption case or a politically motivated indictment built on interpretation?

As one lawyer told Nefes, “In a criminal proceeding, suspicion is not evidence. And interpretation is not proof.”