İmamoğlu Calls 142-Charge Trial Torture as Case Threatens 2,430-Year Sentence
Updated
Updated · The Guardian · Jul 14
İmamoğlu Calls 142-Charge Trial Torture as Case Threatens 2,430-Year Sentence
1 articles · Updated · The Guardian · Jul 14
Summary
Ekrem İmamoğlu told a Silivri court the proceedings had become “a form of torture,” saying detained municipal colleagues had been “forgotten inside the prison” and highlighting the hardship on their families.
The former Istanbul mayor is being tried with more than 400 defendants over 142 alleged offences, from bribery and racketeering to aiding the PKK; 68 defendants are detained and the charges could bring him 2,430 years in prison.
The case began after police detained İmamoğlu on 19 March 2025, one day after Istanbul University annulled his diploma, a move that made Erdoğan’s leading potential 2028 rival ineligible to run for office.
His trial, which opened on 9 March 2026 and may run into next year, is widely seen as likely to block a 2028 presidential bid even as he appeals a separate 2025 conviction that imposed a political ban.
İmamoğlu’s prosecution has become the highest-profile example of a broader crackdown on opposition municipalities, with arrests of CHP mayors, trustee appointments and public support for his case fading from 65% in 2025 to under 50% this year.
With its judiciary dismantled, how can Turkey's opposition survive when the law itself becomes the primary weapon against it?
Could Turkey’s controversial bid for F-35 fighter jets become the key to saving its top opposition figure from prison?
Weaponizing Justice: The 2026 İmamoğlu Trial and Its Impact on Turkey’s Democracy and 2028 Elections
Overview
The trial of Istanbul’s mayor, Ekrem İmamoğlu, which began on March 9, 2026, is widely seen as a major test for democracy in Turkey. İmamoğlu, who had already spent a year in pre-trial detention, has publicly challenged the legitimacy of the judicial process, arguing that the case is politically motivated and designed to bypass the will of the people. His statements, made just before the trial started, highlight deep concerns about the independence of the judiciary and suggest that the proceedings are part of a broader effort to undermine democratic principles in the country.