-
.
- Ελληνικά
Further to recent and current reports in the media, we feel obliged to inform you of the following in support of our actions.
1. Legal framework
(a) Based on the law concerning the protection of whistleblowers (Law 6.6(I)2022), the Audit Office, the Police and the Independent Authority against Corruption (hereinafter "the Authority") are "competent authorities" as "external reporting channels" for reporting corruption offences.
(b) Article 12 of the same Law provides that if a reporting channel receives a complaint which it is not competent to investigate, it shall forward it to the competent authority.
(c) Based on Article 11 of the Law concerning the establishment of the Authority (Law 19(I)/2022), the Authority shall cooperate with the Auditor General for the exchange of information and technical assistance in the fight against corruption.
(d) In complaints forwarded to the Authority by our Office, our Office shall be considered as the "complainant". Pursuant to Law No. 6(I)/2022, anyone who retaliates against a complainant is guilty of a criminal offence.
(e) Pursuant to Article 9 of Law No. 19(I)/2022, the Authority, before commencing any investigation procedure, shall study the complaint in order to determine whether it involves an act of corruption.
2. The facts
(a) On 17.5.2023, in good faith as found by the Authority, we forwarded to the Authority a letter comprising three separate cases.
The first concerns the investigation of serious corporate tax issues involving the interests of publicly influential persons, as we explained in yesterday's notice.
The second and third cases involved an alleged abuse of power to suspend criminal prosecutions under the Common Criminal Code and are the ones on which the Authority's Findings were issued yesterday. On 21.5.2023 a news website published details of the complaint received from the complainant (not through our Office) and on the same day RIK reported.
(b) In addition to the case concerning tax matters, there are three other complaints pending before the Authority concerning the suspension of criminal prosecutions, as we explained in our announcement yesterday. One of them, the one concerning the black van, again concerns issues of potential conflict of interest.
(c) As stated in yesterday's Opinion, the Authority has conducted a preliminary examination of our complaints and, having assessed all the facts, has decided to proceed with the investigation. Besides, one of them revealed the existence of a conflict of interest. This responds to allegations that the complaints were unfounded and therefore should not have been pursued further. Alas, our agency should be held accountable for cases that while having the outward trappings of a valid complaint are not substantiated by the relevant authority (police, Authority, etc.).
(d) Specifically with respect to the complaint in which the Authority confirmed the existence of a conflict of interest, we note that, 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 common. We consider it important to note that, in the case which the Assistant Attorney General suspended, the defendant's attorney was again the law firm in which Mr. Savvas Angelides had previously been a partner. His wife is still working in this office.
The Assistant Attorney General suspended the prosecution of that person because, he claimed, he had not realised that it was his former client. This does not eliminate the existence of a conflict of interest
3. The reasonableness of the actions of the Audit Office
(a) From the foregoing it is clear that our Office acted in an entirely proper and professional manner. And the benefit of investigating the complaint was an admission of the non-serious and unsubstantiated manner in which criminal suspensions are decided
and in particular the manner in which the Assistant Attorney General acted in this particular case. It also highlighted in practice the large institutional accountability gap created by the unaccountability of the Attorney General.
(b) We therefore consider that those leaking information to the media about the alleged filing of an application by the Attorney General for the suspension of the Auditor General for misconduct only aim to distract from the essence of the matter, which is the conduct of the Assistant Attorney General. Those who leak such information know that the President of the Republic has the power under the Constitution to assess whether the manner in which the Assistant Attorney General has acted is befitting his office, and they want to cloud and ultimately obstruct this assessment
.
(c) As to the possibility of a request on behalf of the Attorney General to remove the Auditor General, we note that:
- This is on its face entirely without merit,
- the Attorney General has no such authority, and
- anyone who initiates proceedings against the Auditor General in retaliation for complaints forwarded to the Authority is himself committing a criminal offence.
(GA/AF)
Contents of this article including associated images are owned by PIO
Views & opinions expressed are those of the author and/or PIO
Source
