Aziz İhsan Aktaş Trial: Secret Witness Denies Testimony

A dramatic turn of events unfolded today at the Istanbul 1st High Criminal Court during the trial of a case involving 200 defendants and an alleged crime syndicate led by Aziz İhsan Aktaş. The trial, which centers on claims of organized bribery and rigged municipal tenders, saw its first secret witness, codenamed “Xyzq49p,” retract critical statements that formed the basis of the prosecution’s file.

“I Don’t Even Know This Person”

Testifying via the SEGBİS video conferencing system with a distorted voice, the secret witness stunned the court by denying the testimony attributed to them during the investigation phase. When the presiding judge asked about specific allegations regarding Ferhat Tutşi, the former Support Services Manager for Beşiktaş Municipality, the witness responded firmly.

“I made no such statement. Information has been added to my testimony that I never said. I do not even know who Ferhat Tutşi is,” the witness declared.

Despite claiming in the same breath that the “corrupt structure” within municipalities was common knowledge, the witness admitted under cross-examination by defense attorneys that they had no firsthand evidence. When asked for specific details on which tenders were rigged or how much commission was allegedly paid to Beşiktaş Mayor Rıza Akpolat, the witness stated it was “impossible to explain” at this time, referring instead to the primary defendant Aktaş’s prior statements under effective repentance laws.

Impact on High-Profile Detentions

The credibility of the secret witness is central to the case, as several high-profile political figures remain in custody. Last week, the court issued mixed rulings on the 11 imprisoned defendants:

• Released Pending Trial: Ceyhan Mayor Kadir Aydar, alongside Beşiktaş officials Çağdaş Ateşçi and Ferhat Tutşi (whom the witness today denied knowing), were granted release.

• Continued Detention: The court ordered that Beşiktaş Mayor Rıza Akpolat, Avcılar Mayor Utku Caner Çaykara, and Seyhan Mayor Oya Tekin—all representing the CHP—remain in prison.

The defense, led by prominent attorneys such as Hasan Sınar, argued that the witness’s inability to provide a single concrete example of a rigged tender or a specific bribe transaction highlights the indictment’s “fictional” nature.

Aziz İhsan Aktaş Trial: Historical Context

Taking place within the Marmara (Silivri) Prison complex, this trial is being closely watched as a bellwether for local governance and judicial integrity in Türkiye. The case alleges that the Aktaş organization acted as a bridge between private interests and municipal leadership to monopolize public contracts. However, with the first key witness’s testimony collapsing into hearsay and denials, the legal foundations of the “bribery network” are facing intense scrutiny.

In light of the recent developments at the Marmara (Silivri) Prison complex, it is becoming increasingly clear that the legal framework of the case—particularly concerning the elected CHP mayors—is facing a significant credibility crisis.

Here is a section detailing how the core pillars of the accusations are being dismantled:

The Collapse of the “Evidence” Against CHP Mayors

While the trial began with a series of high-profile arrests, the courtroom proceedings have systematically exposed a lack of concrete evidence linking Rıza Akpolat (Beşiktaş), Utku Caner Çaykara (Avcılar), and Oya Tekin (Seyhan) to any criminal activity. Legal experts and defense attorneys point to three main factors that are rendering the accusations unfounded:

1. Retraction of Key Testimony

The most staggering blow to the prosecution’s case came during the session on April 27, 2026. The primary “secret witness,” whose testimony was the cornerstone of the indictment, formally denied having written their own statements. By stating that they “do not know” the individuals they supposedly accused and admitting that their claims were based on “hearsay” rather than firsthand observation, the witness effectively neutralized the only narrative link between the mayors and the alleged crime syndicate.

2. Absence of Tangible Evidence

Throughout the cross-examination, defense attorneys highlighted a glaring absence of:

• Physical Evidence: There have been no documented financial trails, unexplained bank transfers, or recovered bribe money associated with the mayors.

• Specific Tenders: Despite claims of “rigged tenders,” the prosecution and the witnesses have failed to name a single specific municipal contract that was illegally awarded or compromised.

• Direct Witnessing: Under pressure, witnesses have admitted that their knowledge of “commissions” was based on general “municipal rumors” rather than evidence-based facts.

3. The “Repentance” Paradox

The indictment leans heavily on the “effective repentance” statements of Aziz İhsan Aktaş. However, defense teams argue that these statements are a self-serving attempt by Aktaş to secure a reduced sentence by naming high-profile political targets. Without corroborating evidence—such as wiretaps or technical surveillance showing the mayors coordinating with the organization—these claims remain legally unsubstantiated assertions rather than proven crimes.

Note from the Defense: Attorney Hasan Sınar emphasized that “the transition from ‘hearsay’ to ‘indictment’ represents a severe judicial error.” He argued that keeping elected officials in pre-trial detention based on a witness who does not even recognize the defendants violates both local and international democratic standards.

Source: karar