[PIO] Announcement of the Audit Office regarding the report of the Independent Authority against Corruption on issues concerning, inter alia, the

We first of all congratulate the Independent Authority against Corruption (the Authority) for today's report and the professionalism with which both the Authority itself and the Inspecting Officers it appointed acted.

2. As to the substance of the Finding, the existence of a conflict of interest and the immediate need to remove the Attorney General's unaccountability is confirmed. The present case is the second case, after that of the deposed former Attorney General, demonstrating that unaccountability is not consistent with the practices of a state that claims to wish to stamp out corruption.

3. As has now been confirmed by the Authority, the Assistant Attorney General was in the recent past personally counsel to a person charged with a very serious felony. It is of particular significance that this person's name is rare and far from commonplace. The Assistant Attorney General suspended the prosecution of this person because, he claimed, he had not realised that it was his former client.

The Authority adopts the Inspectorate Officers' finding that there was a conflict of interest but that there was insufficient evidence of corruption offences. We have no reason to question this conclusion. However, even if one adopts the position that there is insufficient evidence to initiate an investigation into criminal offences, this (with all due respect to the presumption of innocence) does not exclude the possibility of an abuse of power that simply could not be established. In any event, the facts reasonably demonstrate the non-serious and unsubstantiated way in which suspensions of criminal proceedings are decided.

4. We recall that there are three other complaints pending before the Authority filed by our Office in connection with suspensions of criminal prosecutions:

1. The first concerns allegations in connection with the conduct of the Assistant Attorney General in the black van illegal wiretapping case and again relates to conflict of interest issues.
2. The second relates to the investigation of serious tax matters of a company with interests of persons exercising public influence. This case is an audit finding of our Service and was incidentally identified in the context of audits for the Cyprus Investment Programme (CIP). We consider the matter as very serious because the end result of the manipulations was to prevent the tax authorities from auditing the company. The same company was also the subject of our very serious findings in relation to the CIP, which the Legal Service did not find it necessary to investigate.
3. The third case concerns the suspension of criminal proceedings against five natural persons accused of the offences of conspiracy to commit a felony, keeping false accounts, theft from a director and money laundering, all in the context of a public contract and to the detriment of the State. The defendants, eight initially, applied to the court for a stay of proceedings and their acquittal. In March 2021, the Court granted the request of two (they had previously been convicted in another, similar case) but rejected the request of the other six, stressing that "the interests of justice require the continuation and not the discontinuance of the present case". Immediately afterwards, one of the six pleaded guilty and was sentenced. Three months later, in June 2021, before the ink on the judge's pen could dry, the Assistant Attorney General suspended the prosecution of the other five, acting contrary to the will of the Court to hear the case. The brother of one of the five is a well-known lawyer.

5. We mention the above while recalling that on 22.5.2023, after making public the fact that our Office had forwarded a complaint to the Authority, the Assistant Solicitor General had issued a communication in which, in the nature of a threat, he made reference to "deliberate attempt to target", "dangerous behaviour" and "arbitrariness and bad faith", which must be "put to an end".

This was followed the next day by similar unacceptable characterizations and accusations by the Attorney General himself, who, speaking on 7.9.2023 in a RIK broadcast had directly threatened the Auditor General, stating that he would consider an appeal to the Supreme Court for the dismissal of the Auditor General if the Authority rejects the charges against his Assistant.

We believe that now citizens can understand what are the reasons that often lead to a direct conflict with the Legal Service.

6. As the Service, which is internationally considered to be the flagship in the search for accountability of those exercising public power, we call on the President of the Republic to speed up the implementation of what is included in his pre-election programme and what has been repeatedly recommended by the GRECO Group and the European Commission through its Report on the Rule of Law: Direct separation of the powers of the public prosecutor and the legal adviser and immediate abolition of the uncontrolled failure to initiate and suspend criminal prosecutions.

Unfortunately, however, to date, the Government, instead of moving in this direction, attempts to further expand the powers of the Attorney General by subjecting the Audit Service to his own opinions and decisions.

7. We welcome the Authority's conclusion on the definition of what constitutes an "abuse of power". It is extremely important that abuse of power exists even without self-interest, which is usually difficult to substantiate. This paves the way for the examination of a very large number of cases that we have forwarded to the Authority.

(PM/NZ)
Contents of this article including associated images are owned by PIO
Views & opinions expressed are those of the author and/or PIO
Source

[/URL]