Akın Gürlek, the newly appointed Turkish Justice Minister, has for almost a decade been one of the most controversial figures in Turkey’s judiciary. The recent allegations which have been put forward by the opposition leader about his wealth may however prove even more explosive than the political trials that gained him his notoriety.
A notorious judge and prosecutor
For nearly a decade, Gürlek’s career has been intertwined with some of the most consequential and politically sensitive court cases in modern Turkey. As an Istanbul judge and chief prosecutor, Gürlek has sent opposition politicians including mayor of İstanbul Ekrem İmamoglu, journalists and lawyers to prison with his brazenly political criminal investigations and later decisions. According to many, those were exactly those investigations and decisions which seemed to always further President Erdoğan’s policies which made Erdogan to finally appoint him as Minister of Justice in February 2026.
A Career Shaped by Political Trials
Gürlek whose career in judiciary began in 2007 was no important or prominent figure until 2016 when he was appointed to a court in Istanbul in 2016.
The timing of that transfer proved quite significant. Only months earlier, Turkey had experienced the failed coup attempt of July 2016, an event that triggered the largest purge of the judiciary in the republic’s history. Thousands of judges and prosecutors were dismissed or arrested, leaving the legal system facing an enormous institutional vacuum.
Within the rank of the judiciary, which was now being shaped by the executive alone, Gürlek’s rise was nothing short of meteoric.
Within two years he became known as a judge presiding over some of Turkey’s most politically charged criminal cases. His courtroom became a focal point for trials involving opposition figures, journalists and civil society actors accused of terrorism-related offences.
Among the most prominent were cases involving Kurdish politician “Selahattin Demirtaş”, film director and a member of the parliament “Sırrı Süreyya Önder” and “Enis Berberoğlu” another MP. Several of the rulings issued in such trials were later cancelled by Turkey’s “Constitutional Court”, intensifying the criticism surrounding Gürlek’s conduct as a judge.
Critics argued that the pattern reflected a judiciary increasingly aligned with the political priorities of the government. Supporters of the government countered that such claims ignored the seriousness of the charges involved, many of which related to terrorism or national security.
Regardless of how it is interpreted, the name Gürlek has become synonymous with the government’s lawfare campaign against dissidents, which has come to define Turkey’s polarised political landscape.
From the Bench to the Prosecutor’s Office
In 2022 Gürlek moved from the bench into the executive branch of the justice system when he was appointed “Deputy Justice Minister”. Two years later, in October 2024, he returned to the ranks of the judiciary as “Istanbul’s Chief Public Prosecutor” — one of the most influential legal posts in the country.
The position gave him authority over investigations in Turkey’s largest city, including cases involving political figures and major corruption investigations.
One of the most consequential investigations launched under his tenure targeted the administration of Istanbul Mayor “Ekrem İmamoğlu”, a leading opposition figure widely viewed as a potential challenger to President “Recep Tayyip Erdoğan”.
The investigation led to sweeping indictments and arrests that reshaped the political landscape in Istanbul and further intensified tensions between the government and the opposition.
Fourteen months later, Gürlek’s career took another dramatic turn when Erdoğan appointed him as the Justice Minister. The promotion placed him at the centre of Turkey’s judicial hierarchy. As minister, Gürlek also chairs the “Council of Judges and Prosecutors” which is responsible for the appointment and discipline of judges across the country.
For critics of the government, the move raised concerns about the concentration of legal authority in a figure already associated with politically sensitive prosecutions.
Allegations about his wealth which is unexplainable
Now, however, the controversy surrounding Gürlek is no longer confined to the courtrooms. It concerns his alleged accumulation of wealth whilst in office as a prosecutor and judge — and whether a public official’s wages as a member of the judiciary could plausibly justify the wealth of assets linked to him.
The controversy erupted in March when Özgür Özel, leader of Turkey’s main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP), stood before parliament and presented what he said were land registry records showing a shockingly large portfolio of real estate associated with Gürlek. According to Özel, the documents indicated that the justice minister presently owned, or had previously disposed of, properties the combined value of which was approximately ₺452 million, a figure which then on became the focal point of a widening political storm.
Özel’s argument rested on a simple calculation. Over the course of roughly nineteen years in the judiciary, Gürlek’s total salary as a judge and prosecutor would amount to about ₺45 million. Even under the unrealistic assumption that he had spent none of it — on absolute necessities such as food, utilities etc. — the sum which would be available to him to buy such valuable properties would still fall far short of their alleged value.
“On a judge’s salary,” Özel told parliament, “it would take “190 years” to accumulate such wealth.”
The remark was both a political accusation and a rhetorical device. Within hours it circulated widely across Turkish media and social networks, crystallising a debate that has since come to symbolise broader concerns about transparency and accountability within the country’s judicial institutions.
The Real Estate Portfolio
During his parliamentary address, Özel described what he said were “twelve properties currently owned” by Gürlek and “four other properties that had been sold in recent years”.
In Istanbul, Özel claimed, Gürlek owned apartments in the rapidly developing Kartal district, as well as properties in Avcılar and Tuzla. The most striking asset listed in the presentation was a villa in the leafy district of “Beykoz”, an area known for its high-end residential developments.
Özel also talked about multiple apartments in the affluent Çankaya and Beytepe districts, neighbourhoods favoured by diplomats, senior civil servants and business elites. Özel argued that Gürlek also owned two apartments in a luxury development in Izmir’s Konak district as well as a plot of land in Gelibolu, with a view of the Strait of Dardanelles.
Together, the properties are said to have a combined value of ₺325.5 million. When the proceeds from previously sold properties are added, the total figure as argued by the opposition are approximately ₺452 million.
For the opposition, the implication was unmistakable: such wealth could not reasonably be explained by the salary of a public official.
The Government’s Response to the Allegations
Justice Minister Gürlek responded swiftly and forcefully. In public statements and through his lawyers, he dismissed the allegations as “fabricated and defamatory”. According to Gürlek, the documents presented by the opposition did not correspond to his actual land registry records.
At the same time, Turkish authorities launched an investigation into public officials who had accessed Gürlek’s land registry records, alleging unauthorised use of personal data. The move was criticised by opposition figures, who argued that the investigation targeted whistleblowers rather than addressing the substance of the corruption allegations.
Corruption in the Turkish judiciary
The controversy surrounding Akın Gürlek is not merely about the conduct or fortunes of a single judicial figure. It reflects a much deeper structural problem: the absence of transparency and accountability within the Turkish judiciary itself. In any democratic system governed by the rule of law, judges and prosecutors must be subject to meaningful scrutiny, particularly when questions arise about unexplained wealth or potential conflicts of interest.
Yet since the sweeping purge of the judiciary following the 2016 Turkish coup attempt, allegations of corruption involving senior judicial officials have surfaced repeatedly without triggering credible investigations or institutional reform. Reports concerning chief prosecutors, deputy prosecutors, and senior judges in major judicial districts such as İzmir, Ankara, and Istanbul Anatolian Courthouse have shocked public opinion. Nevertheless, these revelations have rarely led to transparent inquiries, disciplinary proceedings, or structural safeguards designed to prevent future abuse.
This persistent lack of accountability has not gone unnoticed internationally. In its 2023 evaluation, Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) concluded that Turkey’s compliance with anti-corruption standards remains “globally unsatisfactory.” The assessment reflects a broader concern shared by European institutions: that without independent oversight, asset transparency, and effective disciplinary mechanisms, the judiciary risks becoming vulnerable to political influence and personal enrichment.
Ultimately, the Gürlek affair should serve as a catalyst for a wider debate about judicial integrity in Turkey. Restoring public trust requires more than individual explanations—it demands systemic reform. Transparent asset declarations, independent investigations into allegations of corruption, and genuine institutional accountability are essential if the Turkish judiciary is to reclaim the credibility that lies at the heart of the rule of law.
Categories: Turkey Human Rights Blog