A government circular issued five months before Turkey’s July 15, 2016 coup attempt has resurfaced in public debate, drawing renewed scrutiny to claims that profiling of public employees began before the post-coup state of emergency.
Circular No. 2016/4, published in the Official Gazette on February 17, 2016, was titled “Public Employees Linked to Organizations and Structures Threatening National Security.” It was signed by then-prime minister Ahmet Davutoğlu.
The document instructed public institutions to identify civil servants linked to organizations or structures deemed to threaten national security, take administrative action against them and report acts considered criminal to judicial authorities.
The wording of the circular is significant because it predates the coup attempt and uses broad categories that later became central to mass dismissals under emergency decree-laws.
The circular referred not only to terrorist organizations but also to “structures” that it said operated illegally under a legal appearance. It said action should be taken against public employees who had ties to such groups, acted on their orders, assisted them, used public resources to support them, obstructed efforts against them or spread their propaganda.
Critics say the circular gave official cover to profiling that had already been carried out inside state institutions and helped prepare the administrative basis for dismissals after July 15.
TR724, in an April 2026 review, said the circular had gained renewed attention because it undermines the government’s claim that mass public-sector purges were merely an emergency response to the coup attempt. The outlet argued that the document showed a plan for dismissals and suspensions was already in place months earlier.
The post-coup purge was carried out largely through emergency decree-laws, known in Turkey as KHKs. Tens of thousands of public servants were dismissed without ordinary disciplinary proceedings, many on accusations of “connection” or “affiliation” with banned groups.
Those terms later became one of the most disputed elements of the purge. Rights advocates and dismissed public employees have argued that vague concepts such as “connection,” “affiliation” and “contact” allowed the state to punish people for lawful work, social ties, bank accounts, union membership, school enrollment, subscriptions or alleged associations rather than individualized criminal conduct.
The 2016 circular did not name the Gülen movement in the passages highlighted in the Official Gazette text. But after July 15, alleged links to the movement became the main basis for many dismissals, arrests and asset seizures.
Ankara designates the Gülen movement, a transnational civic initiative inspired by Islamic scholar Fethullah Gülen, as a terrorist organization and blames it for Turkey’s 2016 coup attempt. The movement denies involvement in the coup or any terrorist activity.
Davutoğlu’s signature has also drawn attention because he later broke with President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s ruling Justice and Development Party and founded the opposition Future Party.
In recent years Davutoğlu has spoken about the grievances of people dismissed by decree and called for the resolution of rights violations caused by collective punishment. TR724 news website noted that the 2016 circular complicates those statements because it was issued while Davutoğlu was prime minister.
The document’s importance lies less in its legal language than in its timing.
It was issued before the coup attempt, before the state of emergency and before the emergency decree system became the main instrument for reshaping Turkey’s public sector.
For critics of the purge, the circular supports the argument that July 15 was used to accelerate a process that had already begun: identifying, listing and removing public employees considered politically or ideologically suspect.
For the government, the circular was framed as an administrative measure against groups accused of threatening national security and public order.
Nearly a decade later, it remains relevant because thousands of dismissed public employees continue to seek reinstatement, retrial or compensation, arguing that the measures against them were based on profiling rather than evidence of wrongdoing.
