-
.
- Ελληνικά
The position of the Legal Service on the draft law on the "Law on the Filing of Data and Information in the House of Representatives and Parliamentary Committees (Amendment) Law of 2022", submitted today by the Attorney General of the Republic Mr. George Savvidis and the Assistant Attorney General of the Republic Mr. Savvas Angelides, attending, upon invitation, the relevant meeting of the Parliamentary Committee on Legal Affairs, Justice and Public Order.
At the end of the session, the Attorney General of the Republic made a statement to media representatives, commenting as follows. In particular, the main differences relate to Government Ministers and the Attorney General and Assistant Attorney General of the Republic. I expressed the legal position of the Legal Service, which is that, under the constitutional system that the Republic of Cyprus has, namely the presidential system, it is not possible, in our view, to include ministers in parliamentary scrutiny, because this, in our view, is contrary to the basic principle of the separation of powers. And this, I repeat, because we have a presidential and not a parliamentary system. The same applies - and perhaps to a greater extent - to the position of the Attorney General and the Assistant Attorney General of the Republic, where, as an independent institution, the exercise of their constitutional powers is completely outside the control of the House of Representatives. I presented to the House the decision of the Supreme Court on appeal 4/2021. Appeal of the Attorney General of the Republic on the decision of the House of Assembly to control the Attorney General and the Assistant Attorney General on the management of the Nicolatos Commission's findings], where the House sought to set guidelines on how the powers of the Attorney General of the Republic should operate, and the Supreme Court - in plenary and unanimously - ruled that the powers of the Attorney General of the Republic are unchecked and cannot be controlled by the House of Representatives, nor even by the courts. This position, both on the institution of the Attorney General and on ministers, has nothing to do with the common obligation that we all have to help the better functioning of Parliament and the legislative work of Parliament, within the framework of our own responsibilities. So it does not mean that because there will not be this legislative compulsion, there will not be a presence there and where it is needed. I pointed out in the House - and I was pleased to see that this was acknowledged by the Chairman of the Legal Services Committee, Mr. Tornaritis, as well as by the other members of the Legal Services Committee - that, at least since the present leadership of the Legal Services Committee took over, there has been full cooperation and consultation between the House of Representatives and the Legal Services Committee, with the presence of the Attorney General of the Republic or legal officers of the Legal Services Committee in committees where needed. Something that will continue regardless of our legal position, which remains that the enactment of the proposed law, if the honourable gentlemen insist, will be unconstitutional in our view. Finally, I have outlined a number of other similar attempts made by Members of Parliament since the establishment of the Republic of Cyprus, where in the opinions of my predecessors, particularly the late Crito Tornaritis and the late Alekos Markides, these similar attempts by Members of Parliament did not proceed to a vote because, apparently, the House accepted the position of the Attorneys General at the time that the inclusion of ministers was unconstitutional."
Asked whether he sees an attempt to indirectly or partially change the Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus in order to move from a Presidential Republic to a Parliamentary one, Savvidis replied:
"I cannot interpret what any move or specific proposal put forward may be intended to do. This is the fourth time, if I am not mistaken, since 1960 that an attempt has been made to include ministers. So I do not think that this motion, in and of itself, creates the impression that someone is trying to turn us into a parliamentary democracy. But it is not that simple what you are asking. That is, where there is a parliamentary system, there is the question of a vote of confidence. There is the issue of the possibility of obliging the Government to resign if it does not secure a majority in Parliament. It is a completely different system."
Asked to comment on the issue of the powers of the Attorney General of the Republic and whether he believes that "with the unaccountable powers of the Attorney General, it is as if he is a king in a kingdom separate from himself, who is not subject to any control," the head of the Legal Service replied. One does not equal the other. It is simply that the Constitution - and quite rightly, in my view - establishes that a particular person has the final say over very serious, specific matters such as whether to initiate or discontinue a prosecution. These things cannot have a particular person as the final arbiter. Now it's the Attorney General. In matters of criminal prosecutions, the Constitution stipulates that the Attorney General has the final say and it has been decided by the Supreme Court, which determines and interprets the Constitution, that the Supreme Court cannot control the Attorney General either. This is nothing new. It is something that I think rightly exists, in the sense that the institution of the Attorney General is the one who should have the final say on whether or not a case is taken to court."
Finally, in answering whether the Legal Service and the Attorney General of the Republic will assist, as the Chairman of the Legal Committee has called for, in the debate on the institutionalisation of parliamentary control over the executive without this intended change interfering with the Constitution, Mr. Savvidis replied. What I want to assure both the Chairman of the Legal Affairs Committee and the Speaker of the House, with whom we have a good and excellent working relationship, is that where and when we can, we are at the disposal of the legislature and this is irrespective of the fact that the role of the Attorney General is to be a legal adviser to the executive. I think the members of the Legal Affairs Committee are well aware that whenever the input, assistance or support of the Legal Service is requested, they always have it. They will have that assistance in any matter, and I expressed that within the Legal Committee where I noted that we are available to them if they have any questions."
Contents of this article including associated images are owned by PIO
Views & opinions expressed are those of the author and/or PIO
Source
