Trial's final day saw defense crisis: İmamoğlu's lawyers demand judge recusal

Lawyers for Ekrem İmamoğlu, the detained Istanbul mayor and a presidential candidate, have filed a motion seeking the recusal of the judges overseeing his trial. This move comes after İmamoğlu was removed from the courtroom on July 8, prior to completing his defense statement.

The defense team, including lawyers Fikret İlkiz, Hasan Fehmi Demir, and Tora Pekin, submitted a petition to the Istanbul 33rd High Criminal Court. They requested the separate recusal of the presiding judge and the member judges. The lawyers contend that the court's handling of the proceedings, including rejecting İmamoğlu's request to speak and his subsequent removal, violated his right to a fair trial.

According to the petition, İmamoğlu is accused of being responsible for 143 actions as an "organization manager" in the case, despite lacking direct involvement in many of them. The defense argued that waiting for other defendants' statements was a natural part of their strategy. They criticized the court's record, which stated İmamoğlu "used his right to remain silent" after his request to speak was denied.

The lawyers asserted that the court president's statements during the hearing, suggesting İmamoğlu was "evading defense," were inaccurate. They believe reviewing the audio-visual records (SEGBİS) would clearly show İmamoğlu's intent to defend himself. The defense team argued that the panel misinterpreted the defendant's statements and lost its impartiality.

Furthermore, the lawyers criticized the court's rapid acceptance of a nearly 4,000-page indictment and tens of thousands of pages of additional documents. They also pointed to the management of hearings, time limits imposed on defenses, interventions during proceedings, and the reasoning behind detention reviews as factors raising serious doubts about the court's impartiality. If the recusal request is denied, the defense asked for the case file to be transferred to a competent high criminal court.

“

The court's impartiality is seriously doubted.