The Independent Authority against Corruption (IAAC) has released a report finding that former Nicosia Water Board director Constantinos Parmaklis may have abused his power in several cases involving public tenders and personnel matters.
The Audit Office filed the complaint after discovering potential abuse of power and possible corruption offences, as well as waste of public funds. Investigators examined more than 400 documents, received 186 pieces of evidence, and assessed approximately 70 complaints.
The complaint originated from Pavlos Nicolaou, the water board’s former head of financial services, who submitted his concerns to the Audit Office.
The Audit Office forwarded the case to the anti-corruption authority after identifying possible abuse of power and other potential corruption offences.
Investigation examined 70 complaints and 400 documents
The authority appointed two lawyers, Anna Christou and Dimitris Kailis, as inspection officers to conduct the investigation.
They held 25 hearings, called 14 people to testify, including both the complainant and the accused, and produced a 228-page report.
The inspection officers noted that much of the complaint concerned personal disputes between Nicolaou and Parmaklis. They observed intense rivalry between the two men throughout the investigation, which required particular care when evaluating their respective positions.
The officers found that the water board’s tender procedures frequently failed to follow proper protocol, lacked documentation of all actions, and showed insufficient transparency or justification for the needs that led to contract awards or direct assignments.
Of the 70 complaints examined, four cases suggest possible abuse of power by Parmaklis.
Four other cases indicate potential disciplinary offences, with three involving Parmaklis and one involving other water board officials. Eight cases showed weaknesses in procedures without evidence of criminal or disciplinary offences.
Director allegedly favoured company run by wife’s cousin
The most serious case involves a tender for the supply and installation of shading systems at the water board.
Parmaklis’s wife is a first cousin of the director of the company that won the tender, creating a fourth-degree relationship by marriage. Under the General Principles of Administrative Law of 1999, Parmaklis should have recused himself from the process.
The company director participated actively in preparing specifications, finding other bidders, and ultimately winning the tender.
Parmaklis gave instructions to begin the tender process without involving the procurement department, visited the company’s shop with a water board official, and received suggestions for potential bidders from the company director.
Parmaklis informed the company director about prices before the tender’s completion and encouraged him to submit a lower price in the framework of the new tender.
Acting as a public official, Parmaklis acted arbitrarily, exceeded his authority, and disregarded the rights of third-party bidders who expected the tender would be awarded to them.
These actions constitute arbitrary acts in violation of relevant laws and regulations governing public contracts and may constitute the offence of abuse of power under Article 105 of the Criminal Code.
Eight-year-old tender reopened in suspected vindictive move
The second abuse of power case concerns Parmaklis’s instructions for the water board’s internal auditor to investigate a tender from 2015.
Parmaklis issued this order in 2023 despite knowing about intense personal hostility between the internal auditor and Nicolaou, which called the investigation’s objectivity into question.
Nicolaou had provided technical support for the 2015 tender due to special knowledge and his family member’s professional activity in the specific field but withdrew from the evaluation committee for transparency reasons.
More than four bidders participated in the tender, including a company associated with Nicolaou’s brother, but the award went to an unknown company recommended by an independent civil engineer.
Nicolaou considered the reopening of the matter after eight years, combined with assigning the investigation to the internal auditor with whom he had acute hostility, a targeted and vindictive action by Parmaklis aimed at undermining his position and reputation.
During the investigation, the internal auditor found that two final bidders had a possible relationship with Nicolaou, creating suspicions of conflict of interest.
However, Nicolaou could not access relevant files to defend himself because Parmaklis had issued a circular requiring written approval to receive documents, limiting his defence.
Given that an audit had been conducted previously on the same issue, combined with the time elapsed since the tender, Parmaklis’s justification that the investigation concerned an issue similar to Nicolaou’s complaint, and Parmaklis’s actions,including issuing the circular at the crucial time and appointing the internal auditor as investigating officer, the action appears to stem from the relationship between the two men at the crucial time, and the decision was made vindictively.
The decision to investigate after eight years, given the hostility between those involved and the absence of new evidence, constitutes possible abuse of power and a probable act of corruption by Parmaklis aimed at the vindictive targeting of Nicolaou.
Parmaklis acted arbitrarily, harming Nicolaou’s rights, and his action may constitute the offence of abuse of power and consequently a possible act of corruption under the meaning given to this act in Law 19/2022.
The authority has referred the case to the District Local Government Organisation for a possible disciplinary investigation against Parmaklis and water board officials, regardless of criminal liability.
Three other cases involving the Board’s 70th anniversary event, door and cupboard procurement, and video conferencing system installation showed potential disciplinary offences related to failure to follow proper tender procedures.
