The Supreme Court has stripped DISY MP Nikos Sykas of his parliamentary immunity, clearing the way for him to be investigated over allegations he assaulted his partner.
The full bench ruled unanimously that the alleged offences are serious both in nature and circumstances and have nothing to do with the Limassol MP’s parliamentary duties.
All are equal before the law, the court said, ruling that the public interest is served by lifting immunity for all stages of proceedings. The decision followed a request by the Attorney General.
Sykas’s lawyer, Christos Pourgourides, agreed with the legal basis but argued immunity shouldn’t shield MPs from ordinary criminal law in personal and business matters—only in parliamentary duties.
He challenged the case on other grounds, noting his client is standing in upcoming elections and that the alleged incidents occurred in Greece with only the complainant and accused present.
“She cannot be considered a victim until there is a conviction. And because in Cyprus everyone is guilty before there is a conviction, I want to make this clear,” Pourgourides said.
The lawyer argued the complainant has withdrawn and doesn’t want to appear in court, questioning whether the offences can be proved without her testimony when no one else was present. When judges asked if the complainant refused to testify, he said it wasn’t clarified.
Pourgourides pressed the court on whether conditions exist to lift immunity if the complainant won’t testify and no other witnesses—parents, children or others—were present. No such testimony exists, he said.
He questioned whether the law’s purposes are advanced when a woman says she can’t handle the stress. “We said wash the baby, not drown it; that’s where things are heading,” he said. Whilst conceding immunity could be lifted, he questioned whether proceedings should continue.
Assistant Attorney General Angelides pushed back, saying the proceedings had been drowned out by the arguments. The complainant’s sworn statement says she doesn’t wish to give evidence in court, he said.
“This has absolutely no relation to the request. At this stage, the court does not examine the sufficiency and quality of the testimonial material. The only one who decides the sufficiency of the material is the Attorney General,” Angelides said.
The request for immunity to be lifted at all stages isn’t arbitrary, he added, and the prosecution believes there is material to proceed even if the victim withdraws her complaint.
