The parliament will begin debating the most comprehensive reform of the Law Office ever attempted next Wednesday, with 38 government bills and three legislative proposals aimed at splitting the Attorney General’s dual role through constitutional amendments.
The House Legal Affairs Committee will examine legislation designed to separate the Attorney General’s powers, removing criminal prosecution authority whilst maintaining the position as the state’s legal adviser and establishing a new General Public Prosecutor office.
Thirty-eight bills propose constitutional amendments for judicial reform
The proposed reforms will strip criminal prosecution powers from the Attorney General, who will retain the role of state legal counsel.
A newly created General Public Prosecutor will assume responsibility for deciding whether to initiate or suspend criminal prosecutions and oversee criminal investigations.
Due to the Attorney General’s extensive current powers, numerous constitutional articles and legislation require amendment to transfer all authorities for initiating criminal investigations, prosecutions, or suspension of proceedings to the new institution.
The legislation establishes an eight-year term for both the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General positions, without the right to reappointment.
The new General Public Prosecutor and Deputy General Public Prosecutor roles will operate under similar qualification requirements, tenure, dismissal procedures, and salary provisions as Supreme Court judges, except for the term length.
Supreme Court oversight role for new Public Prosecutor under discussion
A crucial element missing from the 38 government bills concerns oversight of the new General Public Prosecutor’s decisions. Sources indicate the Justice Ministry has prepared separate legislation, already forwarded to the Law Office, addressing this oversight mechanism.
The Supreme Court is expected to assume oversight responsibilities for the General Public Prosecutor’s decisions, with preliminary agreements reached following initial consultations.
However, concerns remain regarding which decisions will require review, given that the Attorney General currently issues approximately 3,000 prosecution suspensions annually.
The Supreme Court has expressed reluctance to review all such decisions, fearing case overload that would delay other judicial work. Many prosecution suspensions involve minor cases that arguably should not reach the justice system due to adequate explanations provided.
Discussions continue regarding oversight mechanisms, with the related bill expected to undergo proper legal drafting before submission to parliament alongside the main legislative package.
Attorney General George Savvides maintains reservations about the unprecedented changes, primarily concerning constitutional compatibility issues. These concerns are expected to be voiced during the Legal Affairs Committee hearing on 10 September.
Savvides previously commissioned constitutional law experts to assess the reforms’ constitutional compatibility.
The specialists divided into two schools of thought: one arguing the changes conflict with the constitution, as necessity law cannot be invoked, and another holding opposing views.
