Istanbul – Access to the trial of Istanbul Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu, a prominent opposition figure, is being increasingly restricted, raising concerns about transparency and due process. The restrictions, imposed by the Istanbul 40th Assize Court, limit the ability of lawyers, journalists and the public to observe the proceedings, which began on March 9, 2026. İmamoğlu and 406 other defendants – municipal officials and associates – face charges of corruption, allegations widely viewed by the opposition as politically motivated. The case is unfolding against a backdrop of heightened political tensions in Türkiye and increasing scrutiny of the rule of law.
The limitations on access have escalated in recent weeks, culminating in journalists being relegated to a position in the courtroom described as a “blind spot,” making it difficult to follow key interactions between the defendants and the presiding judges. This comes as co-defendants Resul Emrah Şahan and Mehmet Murat Çalık, mayors of Istanbul districts Şişli and Beylikdüzü respectively, prepare to present their defense beginning the week of March 23. The indictment alleges that both mayors are members of a criminal organization allegedly led by İmamoğlu, with Şahan specifically labeled as a “special member.”
Human Rights Watch has condemned the restrictions, stating that they undermine the fundamental principle of open justice. “The fundamental principle that justice must be seen to be done requires access for journalists, lawyers, and the public, especially when elected officials are on trial and the proceedings are of such public interest,” said Benjamin Ward, deputy Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch. The organization’s report details the increasing limitations and calls for the court to ensure full access for observers.
Courtroom Constraints and Security Measures
The trial is being held at the Marmara Prison campus courthouse in Silivri, a remote district approximately 70 kilometers from Istanbul’s city center. Security around the courthouse is tight, with a significant presence of gendarmes, barricades, and thorough identity checks. The courtroom itself is unusually large, resembling a sports hall, and designed to accommodate a substantial number of defendants and legal personnel. Currently, 107 defendants are being held in pretrial detention within the courtroom, surrounded by security forces.
The physical layout contributes to the challenges faced by observers. While ample space exists, seating for journalists and the public is confined to a modest enclosure at the back of the room. This placement severely limits the ability to hear off-microphone conversations between the judges and defendants, and to clearly observe non-verbal cues during the proceedings. Journalists have formally petitioned the court to be moved to the empty side benches, but their requests have been denied.
Escalating Restrictions and Parliamentary Intervention
The restrictions began to tighten following several contentious hearings marked by disputes over seating arrangements. On March 16, the chief judge postponed the hearing after three members of parliament from the Republican People’s Party (CHP) – all of whom are too lawyers – refused an order to move from the lawyers’ benches to the back of the courtroom. In response, the court issued a written order limiting courtroom access to defendants, a maximum of three lawyers per defendant, one family member per defendant, and members of the media. Lawyers not directly representing defendants were excluded.
Subsequent hearings on March 17 and 18 saw increased security and reduced public presence. While some CHP members of parliament and relatives of the defendants were eventually admitted to the back of the court after negotiations, broader public access and observation by independent legal counsel remained restricted. On March 12, a hearing was abruptly ended when journalists refused to comply with an order to relocate to the back corner of the courtroom. This followed an incident where a journalist attempted to question İmamoğlu as he was leaving the courtroom, leading to the current policy of restricting journalists to the rear of the room.
Constitutional and International Legal Frameworks
The restrictions imposed by the Istanbul court are facing scrutiny under both Turkish constitutional law and international human rights standards. The Turkish Constitution mandates public trials, allowing for private hearings only in exceptional circumstances related to public morality or security. In 2023, the Turkish Constitutional Court affirmed the importance of public trials, stating that restrictions must be justified and limited to specific, constitutionally defined grounds.
Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, to which Türkiye is a signatory, guarantees the right to a fair and public hearing. The European Court of Human Rights has consistently held that public access is crucial for ensuring a fair trial, and that any limitations must be strictly necessary and proportionate. The Court’s rulings emphasize that arbitrary restrictions are not permissible.
The case against İmamoğlu and the associated restrictions on access are being closely watched by international observers concerned about the state of judicial independence and freedom of the press in Türkiye. Over the past year, Turkish authorities have reportedly targeted journalists for their reporting on investigations and court cases involving İmamoğlu and other CHP officials.
The next scheduled hearing, where Şahan and Çalık are expected to present their defense, is set to commence the week of March 23. The court’s decision regarding access for observers will be critical in determining whether the proceedings can be considered transparent and consistent with both Turkish law and international human rights standards. Updates on the case will be available through official court announcements and reporting from accredited media organizations.
This is a developing story. Readers seeking further information are encouraged to follow updates from reputable news sources and human rights organizations.
Keep reading
