Protest Over Alleged Cover-Up in Seyitgazi Wildfire Investigation

The Eskişehir Emek ve Demokrasi Platformu has voiced strong objections to what they describe as the obstruction of justice concerning the devastating wildfire that occurred in Seyitgazi on July 22, 2025. The platform highlights the tragic loss of 10 lives during the firefighting operations, including five forest workers and five AKUT volunteers.

“

We have learned that the investigation into the relevant public officials, who hold high responsibility at the Seyitgazi Forest Management Directorate and in Eskişehir province, has been blocked by the Personnel Department of the General Directorate of Forestry.

Lawyer Mert Yedek, representing the platform, stated that the investigation into high-ranking officials at the Seyitgazi Forest Management Directorate and other relevant public institutions in Eskişehir has been blocked by the Personnel Department of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry's General Directorate. Yedek expressed dismay, noting that instead of a transparent investigation, the actions suggest an effort to protect those responsible. The platform has lodged formal objections, but the Ankara Regional Administrative Court has yet to overturn the decision preventing the investigation.

“

The only conclusion to be drawn from preventing those responsible from escaping justice is to protect the responsible parties.

Furthermore, the platform criticizes a report prepared by the General Directorate's Chief Inspectorate, claiming it contradicts the accounts of survivors. The report suggests adequate air and ground support was provided, but witnesses assert that aerial intervention was absent and ground efforts lacked sufficient equipment and personnel. The report also notes that while 14 citizens were rescued, the testimonies of nine of them were not taken. The platform finds the conclusion of no negligence unacceptable given these discrepancies and calls for a deeper, more transparent investigation to enlighten the public. They also question the adequacy of training for the deceased forest workers, pointing out that some had only two months of experience, making the claim of complete training for such a dangerous intervention seem implausible. The issue of personal protective equipment is also raised, with the report stating flame-retardant clothing was distributed but not signed for due to the fire's rapid onset.

“

The impression of adequate air and ground intervention was created by sharing the equipment list for extinguishing the fire. However, this clearly contradicts the witness statements.