A period of “permitted freedom” in entry bans

A period of “permitted freedom” in entry bans

N-82 (Entry Subject to Permission): This code specifies that foreign nationals must obtain prior permission before entering Türkiye. Although it does not appear to be a “ban” on paper, in practice, the visa applications or entry permits of individuals with this code are rejected almost without exception. This situation turns into a de facto entry ban.

G-82 (Activity Against National Security): Carrying a more severe allegation, this code involves the prevention of an individual’s entry into Türkiye on the claim that they have “engaged in activities against national security.” Although individuals assigned this code usually appeal the decision through the courts, legal processes proceed quite slowly due to the confidentiality of security reports.

SCOPE OF THE BANS AND UNCERTAINTY

These bans encompass not only politicians but also academics, journalists, and representatives of civil society. The content of the lists and who has been included in this scope have never been officially disclosed as a full list. Consequently, many people only became aware of the situation at passport control upon arriving at the Turkish border (airport) and were sent back, being treated as “persona non grata.”

THE LIST IS MUCH LARGER THAN KNOWN

The estimated list of 16 people circulating in the public eye actually consisted only of Turkish Cypriots who had physically experienced this situation by being turned away at Turkish gates. Most recently, Prof. Dr. Senih Çavuşoğlu was sent back to Northern Cyprus from Antalya Airport. However, President Erhürman’s latest statement proved that the matter contains a wider “grey area” than known. Accordingly: apart from the group of 16 people known to the public who were stopped at the border and received official notification, it emerged that there were others whose names were on the list but only learned they were banned via Erhürman’s notification because they had not attempted to go to Türkiye. This has formalised that the process is being conducted through a list far more extensive than what has been reflected to the public. Despite the diplomatic initiatives, the grievances of those whose restriction codes have not yet been deleted and whose “persona non grata” status continues have not yet been resolved.

INITIAL REACTIONS FROM THE NAMES MENTIONED

Following the development, various statements regarding the issue came from individuals whose names were on the list or who were following the process. Cenk Gürçağ, the Private Secretary to the 4th President Mustafa Akıncı, who learned that his entry ban to Türkiye had been lifted via a phone call from President Erhürman, stated that he had never attempted to go to Türkiye before because he suspected he might be banned; while he found the end of this situation pleasing, he described the existence of such a list as “thought-provoking.” On the other hand, Münür Rahvancıoğlu, the Deputy Secretary General of the Independence Path Party, whose ban continues, reminded that entry permission is at the discretion of the current government and stated that his legal struggle—which he brought to the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Türkiye on the grounds that freedom of travel was restricted—is ongoing. Izzet İzcan, the Chairman of the United Cyprus Party, who took the most distant approach to the process, criticised the presentation of “good news” regarding only 15 names in an environment where hundreds of people are still considered “objectionable,” emphasising that the problem is public rather than personal and that all bans should be lifted without exception.

AKINCI: “THESE PEOPLE OWE NO DEBT OF GRATITUDE TO ANYONE”

One of the harshest reactions to the developments came from the former President, Mustafa Akıncı. Reacting to Erhürman’s use of the expression “more than 15” by saying, “These are human beings, each has a name and an identity,” Akıncı argued that society is being further polarised by being constantly divided into new categories. Stating that since 2020, Turkish Cypriots were first divided as “traitors” and “nationalists,” followed by a distinction between the “banned” and “unbanned,” Akıncı expressed that a new division is now being created through those “whose bans have been lifted.” Asking why those whose bans continue are still being hidden, Akıncı said, “These people owe no debt of gratitude to anyone; on the contrary, this archaic mindset owes an apology both to those individuals and to the community whose will has been usurped.”

RESTORATION OF RIGHTS OR THE REGISTRATION OF ARBITRARINESS?

This development is indicative of how arbitrarily the mechanism of pressure operates, rather than being the regaining of a lost right. Rather than a victory for rights, it is a matter of a freedom that was first usurped being offered back like a favour through “lists” with unclear criteria. The issue that should be carefully considered is not how many people’s bans have been lifted, but why this control over a society’s intellectuals is still in someone’s hands.

References

www.ozgurgazetekibris.com

www.yeniduzen.com

Note: This article is translated from the original article titled Giriş yasaklarında “izinli özgürlük” dönemi, published in BirGün newspaper on May 15, 2026.