-
.
- Ελληνικά
December 29, 2023
The Independent Authority against Corruption ("the Authority"), makes the following announcement:
Lifting of the Ban on Disclosure of Information Regarding Investigations by the Authority
[*]Pursuant to the legislation providing for the establishment and operation of the Authority (L.19(I)/2022), a prohibition on the disclosure of information obtained within the scope of its mission is imposed without obtaining the approval of the Transparency Commissioner.2 [*]In the present case, the Commissioner approved the lifting of the prohibition and the Authority, at a meeting, decided to issue this Communication.
3. The Commissioner's justification for the above lifting is that in the present case there had already been much publicity and personal data and details of the 3 Complaints had been published, so for transparency purposes it was considered appropriate that the results of the Investigations should also be made public.
The Complaints
4. The Complaints were submitted to the Auditor General anonymously, who considered that since they did not fall within his own remit but related to corruption issues, he forwarded them to the Authority.
5. In particular, these are the cases of 3 natural persons who were facing criminal cases for which the Assistant General Prosecutor, Mr Savvas Angelides, registered a suspension of criminal proceedings
6. The allegations contained in these Complaints are that the Assistant Attorney General was associated in a friendly and professional capacity with these Defendants at a time prior to his appointment as Assistant Attorney General and, due to incompatibility, should have been excluded from reviewing and deciding their cases if there were ulterior motives for making the specific decisions to suspend criminal prosecution. And his actions may constitute an abuse of power, an offence which is a corruption offence.
Preliminary examination
7. The Authority, in conducting a Preliminary Examination of the above allegations as provided for by the applicable legislation and Regulations, has taken into account, on the one hand, the case law on the existence of an unchecked power of the Attorney General (in this case the Assistant Attorney General) to suspend criminal proceedings and, on the other hand, the allegations contained in the Complaints
8. The Authority, after evaluating all the facts, decided to proceed with an Investigation into the above Complaints and appointed them as Inspecting Officers:
[*]George Kampanella, Solicitor from London, [*]Tanveer Qureshi, Barrister from London, [*]George Liasidis, Attorney from Nicosia
The Investigation
9. These Inspecting Officers conducted an Investigation on the basis of the Terms of Reference given to them by the Authority and to this end, they called witnesses to give evidence
10. All the witnesses who were called appeared before them and answered all the questions put to them, except one, which will be specifically mentioned below
[BR]
The Reports of the Inspecting Officers
11. On completion of the Survey and after studying all the evidence and data, the Inspecting Officers prepared 3 Reports (findings) which they submitted to the Authority for approval
12. In the first two Complaints, in which the Accused is the Assistant Attorney General Mr. Savvas Angelides, the existence of any corruption offence, i.e. abuse of power, is not established. The testimony did not establish any acquaintance, either personal or professional, between the Accused and the Defendants for whom the prosecution had been suspended
13.The Third Complaint: In this Complaint, in addition to the Assistant Attorney General, the Accused was a Senior Police Officer
14. The said Officer was complained that, he interceded outside the scope of his duties to the Assistant Attorney General, to get a stay of prosecution granted to the Accused.
15. On coming forward to give evidence, the Officer produced two documents to the Inspecting Officers, but refused to answer the questions put to him, claiming that the documents related to "sensitive matters."
16. The Report states that the Officer, by his refusal, was being obstructive to the Investigation and that there was no legitimate reason for his refusal.
17. The Report concludes that such conduct may potentially constitute an offence under Article 8 (b), Law 19(I)/2022.
18. With respect to the facts of the Third Complaint, it is admitted that the Assistant Attorney General had received and signed the order suspending the prosecution of the Defendant, whom he had represented at an earlier time as counsel in another criminal case. Therefore, the Assistant Attorney General's position was that because the recommendation for suspension of prosecution had been made by a particular Police Department, he did not associate that person and name with that of his former client.
19. In the Report on the Third Complaint, on the above points, the concern (concern) of the Inspecting Officers about the lack of a statutory procedure for establishing cases of conflict of interest is recorded. Under the existing system, such matters are left entirely to the memory of the officials which is unsatisfactory.
20. Notwithstanding the above positions, the Inspecting Officers concluded that there is insufficient evidence of the existence of corruption offences in respect of the Third Complaint
Existence of Good Faith on the part of the Auditor General
21. Because during the Investigation proceedings, there was a questioning of the Auditor General's intentions regarding the forwarding of complaints received by his Office to the Authority, the Inspecting Officers put questions to the witnesses in this regard
22. In all the Complaints, the Inspectorate Officers were satisfied that the forwarding of Complaints to the Authority, by the Auditor General, was done in good faith.
Legal Opinion on Abuse of Power
23. Inspecting Officers were asked, where the Complaints related to an abuse of power, to give an opinion as to the interpretation of the term "abuse of power"
24. The Article 105, of the Criminal Code, Chap. 154, makes abuse of power a criminal offence and separates it into cases where it is done without personal benefit, which is a misdemeanour (imprisonment up to 2 years) and cases where there is personal benefit, which is a felony (imprisonment up to 7 years).
25
25. The Authority has, from the outset, taken the view that, any manifestation of abuse of power is a corruption offence as defined by Law 19(I)/2022.
26. Given that almost all of the complaints before the Authority result in an abuse of power for no personal benefit, any other interpretation would lead to their dismissal for lack of competence.
27. This view was also expressed by the Inspectorate Officers in their Opinion with reference to Cypriot case law and decisions, English case law and case law of other countries and the Treaties and Regulations of the European Union.
28. We quote the relevant passage in full:
"24. To this extent, we disagree with any suggestion that an abuse can only arise if and when one profits from an act. That in our view, would make a mockery of what the European law on corruption intended."
Examination by the Authority of the 3 Reports of the Inspection Officers
29. The Authority, at a meeting held on 8.5.2005, held on 8.5.2005. December 28, 2023, adopted and approved in their entirety all the above 3 Reports
30. Accordingly, no corruption offence is found to exist in any of them with respect to either the Assistant Attorney General or the Police Officer
31. Nevertheless, the Authority considers that it is possible that the Police Officer may have committed an offence in breach of Article 8 (b), Law 19(I)/2022, by refusing to answer the questions put to him
32. The Authority, therefore, will forward all relevant documents to the Attorney General with a recommendation for criminal prosecution of the said Officer.
(OP/NZ)
Contents of this article including associated images are owned by PIO
Views & opinions expressed are those of the author and/or PIO
Source
