By Christiana Xenofontos*
the question remains: is this the Cyprus we dreamt of ?
Yesterday’s acquittal of former House President Demetris Syllouris and former Akel’s MP Christakis Giovanis in the “golden passports” case brings to a close one of the most politically charged episodes of the past decade. Five years after the Al Jazeera investigation that shook the Cyprus Investment Programme, the Nicosia Criminal Court ruled that the prosecution did not prove beyond reasonable doubt the charges of trading in influence, bribery, abuse of power or conspiracy to defraud the Republic. The verdict was not unanimous and the court identified substantive gaps in the evidence presented.
The Al Jazeera video, which shaped public perception, was not accepted as evidence and that is how the rule of law functions. Courts do not convict on public outrage or political pressure. They convict on proof. And where proof is insufficient, acquittal is the only lawful outcome. And definitely this must be respected.
But respect for the judiciary does not erase the political and societal consequences of this case. Simply because outside the courtroom, something else is happening; Public trust is gradually being lost. Not because of one verdict alone, but because this case became symbolic. Symbolic of how power, access and influence are perceived to operate in Cyprus. The Cyprus Investment Programme damaged the country’s international credibility. Its termination was not an institutional reform, it was a reputational necessity.
So when such a high-profile case ends without convictions, the legal reasoning may be sound, yet many citizens remain unconvinced. And there exactly lies the real problem. Democracy is not sustained by court rulings alone. Democracy survives on confidence and trust in institutions, on the belief that investigations are thorough, prosecutions are prepared, and accountability exists.
When a court refers to investigative gaps, missing witnesses and evidentiary weaknesses, we should all pay attention. An acquittal due to insufficient proof is not a declaration that nothing went wrong. On the contrary, it’s a point that the burden of proof is high and that institutional competence must be equally high.
The most dangerous thing being whispered by the majority of people today is not the legal argument, but the phrase “After all, this is Cyprus.” That statement carries resignation, fatigue and the quiet acceptance that systemic weaknesses are inevitable. This is far more damaging than any political scandal. Trust is among the cores of democracy. Once it weakens, polarisation deepens, and cynicism and disengagement grow. We are already living in a period where democratic institutions across Europe and the world face scepticism and our island is not an exception. This is not a moment to attack the judiciary. Judicial independence is non-negotiable. The presumption of innocence and proof beyond reasonable doubt are pillars of democratic order.
But independence cannot mean wilful blindness. If investigative mechanisms are weak, then they must be strengthened. If prosecutorial preparation is insufficient, then it must be improved. If governance frameworks allow reputational exposure, then they must be reformed. Cyprus cannot afford going over and over again cycles of scandal, outrage, delay and public disillusionment. The golden passports chapter should not end with acquittals alone. It must end with institutional self-reflection and structural correction. Credibility, once damaged, it takes years to rebuild and then again seconds to lose. We must refuse to normalise mediocrity in governance. We must refuse to accept cynicism as political culture.
The court has spoken, the law has been applied. Now it is the responsibility of the political system to ensure that trust does not remain the missing part. After all, this is Cyprus and the question remains: is this the Cyprus we dreamt of ?
p.s. Perhaps we should not be surprised by the political aftermath that will follow May’s elections.
*Public affairs consultant
