Former Turkish Cypriot leader Mustafa Akinci, who served in the post between 2015 and 2020, described the arrest of five Greek Cypriots in the north on suspicion of espionage it as a “tit-for-tat situation” in response to the arrests made by the Republic of Cyprus of people who stand accused of developing Greek Cypriot-owned property in the north.

He was making the comments after two of the five had their remands extended for a further three months, and added that the situation constitutes “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. The mentality of ‘if you arrest a contractor, we will do the same’”.

On this matter, he referred to the arrest of Greek Cypriot Panicos Tsiakourmas by the Turkish Cypriot authorities operating in the British base of Dhekelia in 2000, on suspicion of drug trafficking.

The arrest of Tsiakourmas came shortly after the Republic of Cyprus had arrested a Turkish Cypriot, named Erkan Egmez, in the same area on suspicion of drug trafficking, and later sentenced him to 10 years in prison.

Egmez was later pardoned by then president Glafcos Clerides, though stated after his release that he had been “tortured” while in custody. Tsiakourmas was released in 2001, hours after his mother had died, with many at the time seeing his arrest as a “retaliation” for the arrest of Egmez.

At the time of Tsiakourmas’ arrest, Akinci was the north’s ‘deputy prime minister’, and he claimed in his book Yasandigi Gibi that the arrest had coincided with a Turkish Cypriot decision to withdraw from ongoing negotiations on the Cyprus problem and demand that the north be recognised.

He said he had written to then Turkish president Ahmet Necdet Sezer, then Turkish prime minister Bulent Ecevit, and then Turkish foreign minister Ismail Cem warning that the policy being followed would “allow the Greek Cypriots to enter the European Union on their own”.

On Thursday, he pointed out that the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) had also ruled against Turkey in a case regarding the arrest of Tsiakourmas, and added, “there can be no room for ‘tit-for-tat’ in the law of a place which claims statehood and, moreover, is purportedly seeking recognition”.