Political entry bans against foreigners Leadership problems identified at Fedpol under Federal Councillor Beat Jans

Two sensitive entry bans reveal leadership problems at Fedpol. Now Justice Minister Beat Jans is also coming under pressure due to a lack of supervision.

Serious management problems have come to light at the Federal Office of Police (Fedpol). This was revealed in a report by the Control Committee of the Council of States, which was published on Tuesday afternoon.

The members of the Council of States investigated how Fedpol decides on entry bans - and found that fundamental errors have occurred in several areas. The area of responsibility of Federal Councillor Beat Jans, who as Minister of Justice oversees Fedpol, is also affected.

It was triggered by two high-profile cases: In October 2024, the right-wing extremist Austrian Martin Sellner was due to appear in the canton of Zurich. The Zurich cantonal police applied for an entry ban. Fedpol examined the case - and initially rejected it. The State Secretariat for Migration and the Federal Intelligence Service also saw no grounds for a ban.

It was only after a call from the Zurich police commander that the then Fedpol director overturned the decision and ordered a ban. This order was not documented. The "NZZ " initially reported on the events.

The affair surrounding the Palestinian-American activist Ali Abunimah in January 2025, which was reported on by the Tages-Anzeiger, was almost identical. Here, too, Zurich submitted an application. And here too, the response from Bern was initially clear: no entry ban. Fedpol stated in writing that the activist's criticized internet posts were "protected by freedom of expression". The Federal Migration Office (SEM) and the Federal Intelligence Service (FIS) also saw no threat.

A day later came the U-turn. Following another email from Zurich, Fedpol ordered a ban - based on the same arguments that had been rejected 24 hours earlier.

The business review writes matter-of-factly that Fedpol deviated from the normal procedure in both cases. In fact, however, this is a clear criticism of the management. Above all, the file management was "inadequate".

Neither in the Sellner case nor in the Abunimah case was it clearly documented why the decisions were suddenly changed. The Commission states that the reasons for the bans are only "very summarily" apparent from the documents.

The report also reveals that the internal decision-making processes at Fedpol are unclear. It is not regulated when the directorate intervenes. According to the former director, the lawyers had "no overall view" - the head of the responsible division disagreed. For the commission, it is clear that if the directorate overrides decisions, clear criteria and proper documentation are required. Otherwise, the impression is created that political interests could supersede professional judgment.

Supervision by the Department of Justice comes off badly. The Commission notes that the Department acted with restraint under Federal Councillor Beat Jans. Fedpol should actually have submitted politically significant cases to the department - but this obligation has apparently never been applied for eleven years. The relevant regulation was hardly known internally.

The commission now recommends extensive corrections. It is calling for complete file management, clear internal responsibilities, clean processes for reconsiderations and more active supervision by the department. The Federal Council has until the end of February 2026 to explain how it intends to rectify the shortcomings.