The partner of MP Nikos Sykas has withdrawn her assault complaint and does not wish to testify in court, his lawyer told Cyprus’s Supreme Court on Thursday as judges prepared to rule on lifting his parliamentary immunity.
Defence lawyer Christos Pourgourides questioned whether the case could proceed without the complainant’s testimony, noting the alleged offences occurred in Greece with no other witnesses present.
“We said bathe the baby not drown it, that’s where things are heading,” he told the court. He questioned whether the law’s purpose to limit gender-based violence was being served when a woman says she cannot handle the stress.
The Supreme Court will announce its decision at 1:30 pm today (Thursday, January 15) on the Attorney General’s request to lift Sykas’s immunity to allow prosecution on assault charges.
Pourgourides told the court that immunity should not shield an MP from the criminal code regarding personal and business matters but should be limited to parliamentary duties. However, he raised concerns about his client, who is both an MP and a candidate in the upcoming elections.
According to the sworn statement accompanying the request, the alleged offences occurred in Greece with the complainant alone with the accused, the lawyer said. She cannot be considered a victim before a conviction exists, he argued. “Because in Cyprus everyone is guilty before conviction, I want to make this clear,” he told judges.
The complainant stated she cannot handle the stress, Pourgourides said. With no testimony from parents, children or others, he questioned whether the law designed to limit gender-based violence was being properly served. He said immunity could be lifted, but expressed concern about whether procedures should continue.
Assistant Attorney General Angelides pushed back sharply, telling the court the procedure has been drowned by what has been heard. The complainant’s statement that she does not wish to testify has no bearing on the immunity request, he said.
At this stage, the court does not examine the adequacy and quality of evidence, Angelides argued. Only the Attorney General decides the adequacy of material.
The application is not arbitrary, and public interest exists, he said. Even if the victim withdraws her complaint, material exists to proceed, he told judges.
The Supreme Court’s plenary will deliver its decision at 1:30 pm.
Read more:
