Within the scope of the investigation carried out by the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor's Office; Hüseyin Ersöz, the lawyer of Aykut Erdoğdu, one of the detained defendants of the IMM Case, and Enes Ermaner, the lawyer of Ramazan Gülten, testified today at Çağlayan Courthouse.
It was stated that the investigation was related to the statements made by the lawyers on BirGün TV through the petitions they submitted to the Istanbul 33rd High Criminal Court.
“THE COURT DID NOT FILE ANY CRIMINAL COMPLAINT”
Ersöz, who did not accept the accusations in his statement to the prosecutor's office, stated that his statements subject to the investigation were related to the petitions he submitted on September 3 and the defense he submitted on September 4. Stating that he also said the issues he expressed in the interview during the trial at the Istanbul 33rd High Criminal Court, Ersöz emphasized that the court panel did not file any criminal complaint due to these words.
Ersöz stated that he referred to the decisions of the 16th Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals and the 8th Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals in the interview and said that he did this in order not to restrict the defendants' rights to defense and fair trial.
Stating that citing high court decisions as precedents is a frequently encountered situation in courts, Ersöz argued that there was no element of crime in his statements.
“IT IS AGAINST THE LAW TO APPLY FOR MY STATEMENT WITHOUT OBTAINING INVESTIGATION PERMISSION”
Ersöz pointed out that his statements were within the scope of his duties as a lawyer and advocate, and therefore argued that a direct investigation could not be carried out against him.
Stating that in order to conduct an investigation against lawyers due to their duties, a special investigation procedure must be carried out and permission must be obtained from the Ministry of Justice, Ersöz said, "I would like to state that it is against the law to open an investigation and take a statement within this scope unless an investigation permission is obtained from the Ministry of Justice."
Ersöz also cited as an example the Bakırköy Chief Public Prosecutor's Office first initiated an investigation due to a press statement he made in front of the Marmara Penitentiary Institutions Campus in April 2026, and then requested permission from the Ministry of Justice in accordance with the provisions of the law on lawyers.
Arguing that the same procedure should be applied in the current investigation, Ersöz also objected to the authority, claiming that the authorized prosecutor's office was Bakırköy or Silivri Chief Public Prosecutor's Office.
ERMANER: “MY STATEMENTS ARE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF DEFENSE IMMUNITY”
In his statement to the prosecutor's office, Enes Ermaner stated that he had previously verbally conveyed the issues he expressed in his interview on BirGün TV to the Istanbul 33rd High Criminal Court panel and submitted them with petitions. Ermaner, who said that the basis of his statements subject to the investigation were the decisions of the 8th and 16th Criminal Chambers of the Supreme Court of Appeals, argued that his statements did not constitute a crime.
Pointing out that the court did not file any criminal complaint against him for the same words, Ermaner said that his statements should be evaluated within the scope of the interview and within the framework of his duty to defend.
Ermaner said, "For all these reasons, I request a decision stating that there is no need for prosecution against me."
Ermaner's lawyers also argued that the statements subject to the investigation were directly related to the performance of the duty of defense counsel and that the special investigation procedure in Article 58 of the Lawyers' Law should be applied.
