The Courage to Pursue Difficult Cases: Why Akın Gürlek Deserves a Fair Hearing

Why a fair hearing matters

European readers deserve a fuller account of Akın Gürlek than political labels can provide. Assessing a justice minister requires examining his priorities, the work carried out during his tenure, and the standards he defends. Alongside the controversies surrounding Gürlek are substantive matters that warrant attention: unresolved killings, investigations into drug supply networks, and allegations involving public funds.

That work deserves serious consideration.

Born in Nevşehir in 1982, Gürlek graduated from Marmara University’s Faculty of Law before pursuing a judicial career. He served as a judge, worked in Istanbul’s heavy penal courts, and became Istanbul’s Chief Public Prosecutor in October 2024. He was appointed Minister of Justice in February 2026. His background spans several distinct responsibilities within the justice system.

The strongest case in Gürlek’s favour concerns his willingness to take responsibility for difficult, highly scrutinised work. Public service demands persistence when investigations become complicated, when public attention intensifies, and when results require years of effort. Supporting that persistence is a meaningful form of leadership.

Unresolved killings and the duty to families

His attention to unresolved killings is particularly worthy of recognition.

For a bereaved family, an unanswered question does not lose its importance with time. Establishing what happened, identifying those responsible, and securing a lawful resolution remain essential. When authorities revisit an old case, reassess evidence, or bring additional expertise to an investigation, they demonstrate that their responsibility to the family endures.

According to figures Gürlek announced on 4 September 2026, work coordinated by the department responsible for researching unresolved crimes had helped clarify 40 cases involving 46 people killed and seven injured. These figures are the minister’s reported results. They nevertheless identify a substantial area of work that deserves examination on its merits.

The human significance is clear. Renewed progress in a long-unresolved killing matters to a Turkish family just as it would to a family anywhere in Europe. Respect for victims should provide common ground. Gürlek’s decision to give these cases greater institutional attention deserves credit on precisely that basis.

Following drug networks beyond visible names

Drug investigations merit the same seriousness.

Effective action against drug trafficking requires sustained scrutiny of suppliers, distribution networks, and financial connections. Investigators must be able to follow evidence through the successive layers of an organisation. That takes expertise, resources, and continuity.

While serving as Istanbul’s Chief Public Prosecutor, Gürlek addressed drug investigations that had attracted attention because well-known public figures were involved. In remarks reported in December 2025, he said investigators were focusing on people supplying drugs and that further operations would target those connections. His stated objective extended to the supply relationships behind the cases making headlines.

The principle at stake is straightforward. Celebrity, wealth, and influence should confer no exemption from lawful investigation. Equally, everyone investigated retains the presumption of innocence and the right to a defence. A credible defence of Gürlek should uphold both principles without qualification. Determination and procedural fairness belong together.

As minister, Gürlek also described investigations involving suppliers, organisers, and international cartel connections. In an NTV interview, he referred to operations in Türkiye connected with major drug shipments intercepted abroad. His account outlined an approach intended to reach across different levels of the trade.

That ambition deserves support. Tracing a criminal network beyond its most visible participants is demanding work. Financial records must be examined, testimony tested, and cross-border connections investigated. The willingness to sustain that effort is a practical measure of resolve.

Public funds, evidence and due process

The Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality case, in which Ekrem İmamoğlu is a defendant, requires equally careful treatment. Gürlek maintains that the proceedings concern corruption allegations and has pointed to financial reports, money movements, and communications records. İmamoğlu denies the charges. Their evidential weight must be assessed through the judicial process, alongside the defence.

European observers should judge those proceedings by the evidence, the protection of defence rights, and the conduct of the trial. Opposition status establishes neither guilt nor immunity from investigation. Official statements do not establish guilt either. A serious assessment must preserve these distinctions.

Gürlek’s position that allegations concerning public resources should be investigated is defensible. Its strongest foundation is a principle familiar across democratic societies: public office carries an obligation to account for the use of public power. That obligation should apply consistently, regardless of political affiliation.

Recognition without suspending scrutiny

Recognition must also extend to the institutions doing the work. Prosecutors, police officers, gendarmerie personnel, forensic specialists, and other public servants contribute to investigations within their respective responsibilities. Gürlek’s role should be assessed accurately: his responsibilities as chief prosecutor differed from those he holds as minister. A persuasive account of his contribution acknowledges those distinctions and the collective effort involved.

It is possible to value Gürlek’s determination while scrutinising individual decisions. Supporting renewed attention to unresolved killings, the investigation of drug supply networks, and accountability for public funds does not require suspending critical judgment. It requires applying that judgment fairly.

European readers should therefore consider the work as well as the controversy. Examine the cases, the reported results, the rights of those involved, and the experience of families still seeking answers. Praise and criticism should meet the same evidential standard.

A public official who accepts difficult responsibilities and supports the sustained pursuit of serious cases deserves recognition for that resolve. Giving Akın Gürlek a fair hearing begins by acknowledging the work.