According to Turkish news outlet T24, the case stems from İmamoğlu's 2019 press statement in which he was accused of insulting members of Turkey's Supreme Election Council (YSK). The original trial court had emphasized that the word "ahmak" (fool) is commonly understood as "stupid" or "mentally deficient" in Turkish society. While noting that Turkey's Court of Cassation had no specific precedent regarding "ahmak," the court pointed to numerous rulings concerning similar terms like "aptal" (stupid) and "geri zekâlı" (mentally deficient).
The appeals court found no procedural violations or evidentiary deficiencies in the lower court's decision, determining that the conviction for "publicly insulting public officials working as a board" was legally sound. However, it identified a mathematical error in applying Article 43/2-1 of the Turkish Penal Code, leading to the sentence reduction.
İmamoğlu's lawyer, Kemal Polat, announced they would appeal to the Court of Cassation, Turkey's highest appeals court. Another attorney, Tora Pekin, emphasized that "the path to the Court of Cassation is open, and this does not mean a political ban."
The case has drawn sharp criticism from opposition politicians. CHP Group Deputy Chairman Murat Emir called the decision "not the work of law, but of the palace's scribes." At the same time, colleague Gökhan Günaydın stated that "elections are won in squares and ballot boxes, not by eliminating rivals in courtrooms."
The final decision now rests with Turkey's Court of Cassation.