Türkiye: Court Restricts Access to İmamoğlu Trial, HRW Reports

Istanbul’s mayoral trial, involving opposition leader Ekrem İmamoğlu, is unfolding under increasingly restricted access for observers, raising concerns about transparency and due process. The case, centered on allegations of corruption, has grow a focal point of political tension in Türkiye, with international observers noting the potential for politically motivated charges. Restrictions imposed by the Istanbul 40th Assize Court are limiting the ability of journalists, lawyers not directly involved in the defense, and members of the public to fully monitor the proceedings, which began on March 9, 2026.

A Courtroom Under Scrutiny

The current restrictions stem from a series of disputes over seating arrangements and access within the courtroom. The courtroom itself, described as the size of a sports hall and located on the Marmara Prison campus in the remote Silivri district – 70 kilometers from Istanbul’s city center – presents a physical barrier to observation. The layout places judges and prosecutors at one end, with 107 defendants in detention before them, followed by seating for those at liberty, lawyers, and a tiny enclosure for onlookers and media at the very back. This physical arrangement, coupled with recent court decisions, is significantly curtailing access.

On March 16, the chief judge postponed a hearing when three CHP members of parliament, who are too lawyers, refused to move from the lawyers’ benches to the back of the court. This led to a written order limiting courtroom presence to defendants, a maximum of three lawyers per defendant, one relative per defendant, and media representatives, effectively excluding other lawyers and the general public. Subsequent hearings on March 17 and 18 saw increased security and reduced public presence, with many lawyer benches remaining empty. While some CHP members of parliament and additional relatives were later admitted after negotiation, broader public and independent legal access remained limited.

The restrictions on media access have been particularly contentious. Following an incident where a journalist questioned İmamoğlu as he left the courtroom, journalists are now confined to the back corner, described as a “blind spot” due to the difficulty of seeing and hearing proceedings. Journalists have formally requested a return to the side benches, citing the inability to effectively follow the case from their current location. This limits their ability to hear off-microphone discussions between defendants and judges, crucial elements of a trial.

The Charges and the Political Context

Ekrem İmamoğlu, the mayor of Istanbul from the Republican People’s Party (CHP), and 406 other municipal officials and individuals are facing charges related to alleged corruption, extortion, bribery, money laundering, espionage, and supporting terrorism, specifically the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). The indictment accuses two fellow CHP mayors, Resul Emrah Şahan of Şişli and Mehmet Murat Çalık of Beylikdüzü, of being members of a criminal organization allegedly led by İmamoğlu, with Şahan designated as a “special member.” These charges have been widely viewed as politically motivated, particularly given İmamoğlu’s rising prominence as a potential challenger to President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in future elections.

İmamoğlu’s arrest in March 2025, and the subsequent detention of over 100 others, sparked widespread protests across Türkiye and drew condemnation from international bodies like the Council of Europe, the European Parliament, and Human Rights Watch. These organizations have described the detention as an attempt to stifle lawful political activity and undermine the democratic process. The arrest also coincided with a period of economic instability, including a slide in the Turkish lira and investor concerns, further exacerbating the political climate. Human Rights Watch has consistently characterized the case as a politically motivated attack on the opposition.

A History of Targeting Opposition Mayors

The targeting of İmamoğlu is not an isolated incident. Over the past several years, Turkish authorities have increasingly focused on removing democratically elected mayors from office, particularly those from opposition parties. This pattern includes the removal of mayors in 1999 and Kurdish party mayors in the southeast. The current case against İmamoğlu and other CHP officials fits into this broader trend, raising concerns about the erosion of local democracy and the rule of law in Türkiye. The Istanbul prosecutor’s office has initiated five criminal cases against İmamoğlu, all based on what critics describe as scant evidence.

The Legal Framework and International Obligations

The restrictions on access to the trial are at odds with both the Turkish Constitution and international human rights law. The Turkish Constitution guarantees the right to a public hearing, with limitations permissible only in cases involving public morality or security. In 2023, the Turkish Constitutional Court affirmed that public trials are a constitutional requirement. The court’s ruling emphasized that restrictions on hearings must meet specific constitutional criteria.

Türkiye is a party to the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to a fair and public hearing (Article 6). The European Court of Human Rights has consistently held that public access is essential for ensuring a fair trial, and any limitations must be strictly necessary and proportionate. Arbitrary restrictions, such as those currently in place in Istanbul, are not permissible under international law. The European Court of Human Rights has affirmed this principle in numerous cases.

Implications and Regional Concerns

The handling of İmamoğlu’s trial has broader implications for Türkiye’s international standing and its commitment to democratic principles. The restrictions on access to the proceedings reinforce concerns about the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law in the country. This could further strain relations with European partners and other Western democracies, who have repeatedly expressed concerns about human rights and democratic backsliding in Türkiye. The case also sets a precedent for the treatment of political opponents and could embolden further crackdowns on dissent.

The trial’s outcome could significantly impact the political landscape in Türkiye, particularly as the country approaches future elections. A conviction could disqualify İmamoğlu from running for office, potentially altering the dynamics of the opposition and strengthening President Erdoğan’s position. Conversely, a fair and transparent trial could bolster İmamoğlu’s credibility and increase his chances of challenging Erdoğan in a future presidential race.

Procedural Next Steps

The week beginning March 23 will see co-defendants Resul Emrah Şahan and Mehmet Murat Çalık present their defense. The court’s continued enforcement of access restrictions will determine whether the public and independent observers can adequately monitor these proceedings. The CHP is likely to continue its efforts to negotiate for greater access and transparency, potentially through legal challenges or parliamentary pressure. The case is expected to continue for several months, with further hearings scheduled throughout 2026. The focus will remain on whether the court will adhere to constitutional principles and international legal standards, or whether the proceedings will continue to be shrouded in secrecy and perceived political bias.