The Assistant Attorney General of the Republic, Savvas Angelides, and the Auditor General, Odysseas Michaelides, today stated their positions before the Parliamentary Committee on Finance in relation to the correct constitutional designation of the Assistant Auditor General.
Last week, Mr Michaelides had raised the issue of referring to the title of second-in-command in the Audit Service as Assistant Auditor General in the supplementary budget, instead of Assistant Auditor General, at a time when the Audit Service had filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.
In his reports before the Commission, Mr. Angelides described the whole matter as a formality, adding that "an argument is created out of nothing. We all have to take up valuable time to present an otherwise formal matter," he said
He said that if there is no misinformation or misleading operation, there is a basic lack of knowledge of legal procedures.
"There is no background, in my estimation, to justify linking the promotion of this particular budget with an appeal to the Supreme Court on the authority of the Ministry of Finance to issue or not issue" circulars."
[P HE FURTHER SAID THAT IF THE AUDITOR GENERAL WANTED TO CHALLENGE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINION ON THE MARCH 24, 2022 ISSUE, HE COULD WITHIN 30 DAYS IF HE CHALLENGED THE OPINION.He cannot state and advance arguments that the supplementary budget should not be approved until the Court resolves the dispute, he said. Angelides, appreciating that the Supreme Court will not rule on the merits of the dispute.
Saying that the opinion "in no way deals with powers and responsibilities," Angelides added that "I say and feel that it is not the title, which at the end of the day, creates the persons."
"The title does not upgrade people's abilities," he added.
He noted that "the Supplementary Budget Law carries a presumption of constitutionality and this is a principle that no one can challenge."
"And neither through the supplementary budget," he added, "is there an attempt to amend fundamental articles of the Constitution, such as the reference to the position of the Auditor General, simply an interpretation was given that falls within the competence of the Attorney General."
According to Angelides, in 1990 there was the opinion of Attorney General Michael Triantafyllidis that the title was Assistant Attorney General, Assistant Auditor General and so on. Until 2015 when there was the different opinion of Costas Clerides. He said in 2016 there was compliance in the budget which stated Assistant Auditor General.
But he added that there was a newer opinion on March 24, 2022. "Since when do we choose which Attorney General's opinion can be forwarded and since when do we say it cannot be forwarded?" he questioned.
"If one does not like it there were procedures in place to attempt to overturn it (the opinion), no one has done so," he added.
He further questioned by what authority the Auditor General was sending a letter to the Chairman of the Finance Committee asking for an amendment to the bill.
"If anyone uses the phrase constitutional aberration, which the Auditor General is invoking, it applies to the entire conduct of the Auditor General in his actions and actions," he said, adding: "Things are not funny, everyone has their own authority and we cannot, with all due respect to all institutions, allow one institution to interfere with another and this is a striking example."
Referring to a letter from the Auditor General to the then Attorney General, Kostas Clerides, requesting an opinion on the matter, Mr. Angelides said that "basically the Auditor General accepts that the issue of interpretation of the title falls within the powers of the Attorney General as the only one competent to give an opinion on the executive power."
"At the end of the day, what remains are the actions, behaviours and deeds of each individual. We cannot at will invoke principles whenever and however we want," he said."
In response, the Auditor General reiterated that the Ministry of Finance's circular "conflicts with Articles 115 and 117 of the Constitution. The main basis of our petition is that the circular is not in accordance with the Constitution."
He further said that the executive had pleaded on June 6 before the Supreme Court to reject the position of the Auditor General, but the Court rejected it.
He further argued that "the first person who violated a valid opinion of the Attorney General is Mr. Savvas Angelides and the President of the Republic, because in the act of appointment of Mr. Angelides, while there was a valid opinion of a previous opinion that said something else. The Assistant Attorney General had been corresponding for two years."
He also recalled that during the discussion of the dismissal of the then Assistant Attorney General Rikos Erotokritos, he objected to the use of the title Assistant Attorney General.
He said he was put off by the fact that the Ministry of Finance is using the emergency procedure to try to resolve an issue that will be considered by the Supreme Court.
Responding to questions from MPs on why such an issue was raised only in the Audit Service, Michaelides said the issue of the title and responsibilities of the Assistant Auditor General had arisen during the time of Chrystalla Yiorkatzi.
"The issue has not been raised again because there may not have been an Assistant Auditor General who says he is not a subordinate and that he does not accept instructions. He did them under Ms. Yorkaji. I have no obsession and I am glad because the issue was raised under Ms. Yiorkaji. Kyriakos Kyriakou was sending a letter without putting his title. The Assistant Auditor General has raised the issue of competencies he was arguing that we should divide the competencies and everyone should do their own thing."
We are not a court
Taking the floor, the Chairperson of the Committee, Christiana Erotokritou said that the Finance Committee is neither a court nor will it resolve any dispute. "The committee should be consumed and run out of time on economic issues. Nonetheless because the issue of diversification of the supplementary budget arises and will hear your positions. This is not a court in which there is the process of seconding or answering, nor will we decide on any dispute."
DISY Deputy President Harris Georgiades said that the executive is right to propose compliance with the current opinion and that the Supreme Court's consideration of the issue is irrelevant. "So, I think, the Parliament cannot wait for a court decision which may or may not come," he added.
On behalf of AKEL, Christos Christofides linked the issue to the bi-communal nature of the state and added that the issue is of a political and not a legal nature. "I think that it is unfair that the government has essentially asked the finance committee to take a position on such an issue, especially when a debate in the Supreme Court is pending," he said.
For his part, EDEK MP Elias Mirianthous said that the whole issue reminded him of the one about a bi-zonal and bi-communal federation with the right content.
PPP MP Alekos Tryfonidis said that the Supreme Court will decide the issue, while Stavros Papadouris of the Ecologists said that the Parliament should find a way that will not prejudge the whole dispute.
Source: CNA
Contents of this article including associated images are belongs Cyprus Times
Views & opinions expressed are those of the author and/or Cyprus Times
Source
