The Supreme Constitutional Court on Wednesday unanimously voted to dismiss Auditor General Odysseas Michaelides, finding him guilty of improper conduct and behaviour unbecoming of an independent state official.
In a 209-page ruling, the eight-judge panel criticised Michaelides for being “seduced by the Sirens of popularity and polls, confusing the limits of his institutional role”.
The court rejected all defence arguments, stating that Michaelides should have taken any institutional differences to court rather than engaging in public confrontations.
The decision upheld all 15 complaints brought by the Attorney General, effectively challenging all positions held by the Auditor General. The court found Michaelides had targeted the Assistant Attorney General over double pensions, revealing “bias and lack of objectivity”.
The judges also accused Michaelides of “clever distortion of facts” through selective presentation of information, leading to “erroneous conclusions” and “mistaken opinions” about state services and their leaders.
Regarding Michaelides’ investigation into the Commissioner of Volunteerism, the court noted it was “surprising” that he conducted open telephone hearings, overlooking that such investigations fall under police jurisdiction.
The ruling emphasised that “popularity is not a criterion and measure of behaviour for a state official” and rejected claims that Michaelides was being persecuted for expressing opinions. Instead, the court focused on his “unacceptable comments, insinuations, and attribution of alien motives” during the Attorney General’s exercise of constitutional powers.
The judges concluded that Michaelides had “deliberately acted, dismantling the heads of the Law Office and reserving for himself the role of the only, impartial, defender of the interests of citizens”, thereby devaluing both individuals and institutions.
The court’s decision, which is final and binding, results in the immediate dismissal of Odysseas Michaelides from his position as Auditor General of Cyprus.
The case was initiated by Attorney General Savvides in April seeking Michaelides’ removal for inappropriate conduct.
Michaelides had been highly critical of state institutions, alleging corruption within the Law Office and other sectors, including accusations against the Attorney General himself. These repeated public accusations, along with Michaelides’ communication with international audit bodies, were seen by Savvides as undermining public trust in the Law Office and state institutions.
Read more:
