A bill implementing the European Union’s Media Freedom Act met strong opposition from MPs, journalists and publishers in parliament on Thursday, with critics warning that some provisions could expose journalists to criminal penalties and undermine source confidentiality.
House interior committee chairman Aristos Damianou pointed to an article stating that a “supervisory/independent authority may take investigative, prosecutorial or administrative measures” against journalists, which he said conflicted with the constitution of the Republic of Cyprus.
“Under the arrangements being put forward, we will not accept any erosion of journalists’ sacred constitutional right, except in the cases provided for, which require the involvement of the judiciary. Enough,” he said. He said he was speaking emphatically because “all sorts of things are going on”, though he was not blaming the current government. “We must understand that the constitution is above everyone, including the authorities of the Republic.”
The Cyprus Radio-Television Authority and the Press and Information Office (PIO), which would share responsibility for supervising the regulation, said it could not work in practice even if the bill were passed now, as they lacked both the staff and the funds for the task. PIO director Aliki Stylianou said that, partly because of understaffing, it would be “humanly impossible” to implement its provisions.
The regulation should have been applied from August 2025. During the committee’s discussion, MPs from several parties objected, some of them calling for the bill to be withdrawn, as did organisations ranging from the Union of Cyprus Journalists to the publishers’ association and television channels.
Union president Giorgos Frangos said the primary aim of the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) was to safeguard pluralism and the independence of the media and journalists. “However, we have before us a ‘Frankenstein’ bill that overturns, distorts and undermines this primary objective,” he said. “Instead of focusing on protection, it focuses on control and on exceptions to the rule it supposedly promotes.”
He said the bill introduced additional administrative, punitive and even criminal provisions against the media and journalists, which ran counter to the spirit and the letter of the EMFA, and “blatantly violates the principle of self-regulation of the journalistic profession”. “Journalists, publishers and their bodies decide on their own affairs. No one else,” he said. On the provision lifting source confidentiality, he said Article 17 of the constitution was more than enough to cover any need to monitor journalists, if and when it arose.
Elli Kotzamani, president of the Cyprus Media Complaints Commission, warned that if the regulation were approved without mechanisms to protect journalistic work, journalists would continue to come under attack from all sides and would lack the freedom and independence they need. She also backed self-regulation.
Christoforos Christoforou, an expert and head of the Media Pluralism Monitor project, said the bill did not safeguard the rights of the media and journalists to inform the public freely and without interference.
A representative of the Interior Ministry said the EU was seeking an update on how the regulation was being implemented in Cyprus, as it has been in force since 2025. She said the bill had been amended after consultations and aimed to set out a clearer procedure for protecting media rights. It would also strengthen the independence of public service media such as the state broadcaster, and increase transparency over media ownership and over how public money for state advertising is allocated.
A representative of the Law Office of the Republic also said the regulation needed to be approved. Ministries and other public services said some issues needed regulating, but did not dispute the right of the media and journalists to work without interference.
