Newsroom
Eight people are now confirmed dead following the ferry disaster off Kyrenia, as the search continues for passengers still missing and uncomfortable questions begin to emerge about how the vessel was allowed to leave port.
The FILOJET capsized shortly after departing Kyrenia for Taşucu in southern Turkey on Sunday, carrying 259 passengers and eight crew members.
The exact number of people still missing remains unclear. Reuters reported that 241 people were rescued, which would leave 18 unaccounted for. The Associated Press, citing authorities in the north, reported 237 survivors and 22 missing.
Until officials reconcile the passenger list, each figure should be treated as provisional.
The vessel is now lying on the seabed at a depth of about 514 metres, making any attempt to reach it extremely difficult. Turkish divers have joined the operation, while families continue to wait for news of relatives who were on board.
The captain and seven crew members have been detained for questioning. Their detention does not establish responsibility, but it marks a clear shift in the case: this is no longer only a search-and-rescue operation. It is also an investigation into whether the disaster could have been prevented.
Survivors described the catamaran moving violently before hitting the surface of the sea with force. They said the impact damaged the bow and allowed water to rush inside. Within a short time, the vessel had overturned, leaving passengers in life jackets clinging to its upturned hull and waiting for help.
Who allowed it to sail?
Turkish Cypriot journalists are now openly challenging the authorities’ handling of the ferry’s departure.
Ayşemden Akın, director of the Bugün Kıbrıs news website, reported that the FILOJET was initially refused permission to sail because of the weather. According to her account, that decision was reversed about an hour later and the ferry was allowed to leave.
If confirmed, that raises a simple but crucial question: What changed during that hour?
Akın called on Turkish Cypriot “transport minister” Erhan Arıklı to reveal who approved the departure and what weather, safety or technical information was used to make that decision.
She also argued that referring to an inspection carried out two months ago is not enough. The public, she said, needs to see the ferry’s operating permit, inspection reports and the document authorising it to leave Kyrenia on the day of the disaster.
Arıklı has not publicly answered all those questions.
A vessel with a long and complicated history
The ferry’s past is also coming under scrutiny.
The 26-year-old catamaran, identified by the International Maritime Organization number 8962034, was previously called IRIS JET. It was reportedly operating between Turkey and the occupied areas as far back as 2003.
According to reports citing a 2009 ruling by France’s Court of Cassation, the IRIS JET struck a pier while manoeuvring in port in 2003. Days later, it began taking on water during another journey, leading to a legal dispute between the ferry’s owner and its insurer.
The vessel later changed owners, names and flags. Turkish Cypriot journalist Aysu Basri Akter, citing publicly available shipping records, said it had sailed under several flags, including those of Spain, Greece and Panama.
She also reported that the ferry was once seized and towed to a shipyard, where it remained for four years before undergoing extensive repairs. Questions have also been raised about gaps in its classification history, the records used to show that a ship meets recognised technical and safety standards.
None of that proves what caused Sunday’s sinking. But it does make full disclosure of the ferry’s most recent inspections even more important.
Investigators must now establish whether the vessel was seaworthy, what its latest safety checks found, why it was permitted to sail, what caused water to enter through the bow and whether passengers were evacuated properly.
With eight people dead and families still waiting for news of the missing, broad assurances will no longer be enough. The public will want documents, a clear timeline and answers about who made the decisions that put the FILOJET to sea.
