The essence of yesterday’s Court decision lies not only in the final verdict to remove the Auditor General but also in the judges’ apparent attempt to not just condemn but humiliate him. The decision, spanning 209 pages, aims to disgrace him to an extent unprecedented in the history of the Republic of Cyprus.
While I won’t claim that this was intentional, the decision, when read in its entirety, leads one to think that the judges went to such lengths to ensure his complete destruction, both now and in the future, and to convince society—knowing that they were condemning an official trusted by the citizens—that there was no other choice but to remove him due to the overwhelming evidence against him.
Thus, the judges didn’t just decide to remove him from office; they decided to flatten him. Their final judgment, as well as their conclusions in each of the 15 chapters they examined, is precisely of this nature. According to their judgment the Auditor General :
“Violated the ultimate boundaries,”
“Displayed behaviour far below the expected level,”
“Behavior that, when objectively judged, renders him incapable of performing his high duties,”
“Creates doubts in third parties, objectively judging, as to his suitability to perform his duties with adequacy and in the public interest,”
“Prejudice and lack of proper judgment.”
These and many other comments. No one knows what the “ultimate boundaries” are. But the “objectively judged,” as the judges say, the behaviour of the Auditor General was based on issues that we didn’t expect to influence the eight Supreme Court judges of the country. For example, they conclude him, and one of the points they consider important to mention is that on the website that supports the Auditor General, some citizens, presumably anonymous, wrote about the Assistant Attorney General, “a top dog that you all want, you bastards,” and “a bullet to the head to bring down the mind of the scum,” (yes, these are mentioned in the decision).
However, these are expressions that parade daily and in thousands on the internet, and those of us in public life, even journalists, receive them by the pound every day. It is inconceivable for these to be criteria for the Supreme Court of the country to judge a state official.
Many have tired us yesterday, mainly lawyers and parties, who advise us. That the decision is respectable, that the judges are based on some criteria (jurisprudence, testimonies, etc.) that the citizen does not know. Or, as the largest party, DISY, hypocritically announced: “We do not judge the case or the reasoning of the decision.” But here the role and independence of the Audit Office are called into question, it is not a legal issue.
However, the judges say, whatever their reasoning, the right of an independent state official, especially the Auditor General, to speak freely, inform citizens, control and question was tried. This is a political issue. And it concerns the government and the parties, politicians and institutions.
The essence is what kind of checks and balances the Republic wants to have. In the ten years that preceded it, Odysseas Michaelides gave a new dimension to the Audit Office, and this dimension was appreciated by the citizens’ society. The court’s decision says very clearly that the audit must go back ten years. To become as it was before Michaelides. Do we want this? Do the government and the parties want this? Let them say it clearly if they have the courage to face the citizens in the eyes. And don’t hide behind the decision of eight judges.
Anyway, I humbly submit, as they say in the courts, that the judges’ decision is political. Based on what jurisprudence, for example, did they judge that the Auditor General was “seduced by the Sirens of popularity and polls”? How did the judges judge this? It is a political coffee shop decision, not a legal one. As is the fact that he reserved, they say, “for himself the role of the only, impartial, protector of the interests of the citizens.” Is this based on some jurisprudence? Is there any international judicial precedent?
Odysseas Michaelides was even condemned for his tone! “Unnecessary confrontations” and “with a condescending tone.” He is honest but they don’t like his tone! I hope he goes to the ECHR. At least, to learn what tone an honest official should have.
Read more:
