Nine Suspects in Filo Jet Disaster Remanded for Another Seven Days

Nine suspects who have been in custody for 74 days as part of the investigation into the Filo Jet disaster, which occurred off the coast of Kyrenia on 30 August and claimed 28 lives, were brought before the court again today. At the request of the investigating police officer, the court ordered that the suspects remain in custody for a further seven days.

It was stated that the suspects could be held in custody for a maximum of 90 days as part of the investigation, and the police request for an additional seven days was approved.

Providing information on the progress of the investigation, police said that responses received from Türk Loydu on 4 November 2026 had been examined. The police officer stated that the VDR device had been fully listened to and that experts were preparing a report based on the data obtained. A total of 57 days’ worth of recordings had been examined, the officer added.

Police said evidence had been obtained from the VDR recordings showing that the Department of Ports had carried out an inspection on 27 June. The officer also outlined deficiencies concerning some of the equipment on board the vessel. According to the findings, the expiry date of the lifebuoy on the bridge had passed, while an air-band radio and a radio set were missing.

Inspections conducted in accordance with SOLAS standards also revealed that 14 adult and 12 child life jackets were missing. However, it was stated that following the inspection, the company had rectified the deficiencies in question and notified the Department of Ports. A subsequent inspection had also confirmed that the shortcomings had been addressed.

Police said they were examining a report suggesting that the vessel had sunk due to damage to its bow, but stressed that the cause of the sinking had not yet been conclusively established. The report would also be assessed by a team expected to arrive from Turkey, which would carry out further verification.

DEFENCE LAWYER QUESTIONS POLICE OVER VDR RECORDINGS

The defence lawyer argued that the VDR device was not capable of recording malfunctions as data, adding that the police statement had also confirmed this. The lawyer said it was impossible to identify any malfunction sounds or determine where a malfunction had occurred through the device.

Stating that he had raised this issue approximately six weeks earlier, the defence lawyer said the police had only now confirmed the information, arguing that the investigation had been proceeding on the basis of an incorrect claim for a considerable period.

When the defence lawyer also stated that the broken piece of the ramp examined by police was not the part that had broken off from the front of the vessel, police responded that this was an allegation.

The defence lawyer said responsibility for checking and inspecting whether the VDR device was operational on the day of the accident rested with the chief officer, as the technical officer in charge. He asked whether an investigation had been conducted into whether the chief officer had carried out the relevant checks on the day of the accident. Police replied that the matter had not yet been raised with him.

CLAIM THAT CAPTAIN AND DIRECTOR DID NOT KNOW EACH OTHER

The defence lawyer alleged that the captain and the director were unaware of each other's roles within the operation and did not even know one another. In response to the lawyer's reference to the hierarchy of responsibilities under ISM shipboard standards, police said the claim that the two did not know each other was an allegation.

Noting that only two weeks remained under the constitutional procedure for completing the investigation, the defence lawyer asked whether responses and reports sent or expected from the police in Turkey and Türk Loydu could be completed within that period. Police said the work would be completed on time.

The defence lawyer said Türk Loydu could provide an answer as to whether a part previously found to be damaged on the vessel could be repaired, but that no information had yet been obtained on the matter. He argued that no definitive finding had been reached regarding the cause of the vessel's sinking despite 74 days having passed.

The lawyer criticised the failure to establish the cause of the sinking, arguing that this could be determined by Türk Loydu, the organisation that classified the vessel, rather than through academics consulted by the police.

POLICE: NO SHORTCOMINGS IDENTIFIED AT DEPARTMENT OF PORTS

In response to a question from the defence lawyer, police said no shortcomings had been identified concerning the Department of Ports.

Police also alleged that the chief officer had failed to fulfil his responsibilities on the day of the incident. The officer said the chief officer had not assisted either with the evacuation of passengers or with explaining to them how to put on their life jackets.

Due to the continuation of the investigation, the court ordered that the nine suspects remain in custody for a further seven days.