The attention of the public is rightly focused on the criminal prosecution of the former Transport Minister in the first Anastasiades administration, regarding the infamous golden passports scandal.
This case has tarnished Cyprus’s reputation internationally. Notably, this is the first case related to the scandal where a former political figure is accused. However, there is a highly provocative aspect that should not go unnoticed, involving the two heads of the Law Office.
Who are these individuals, what is their background, and what connects them to Marios Demetriades? The latter served as the Transport Minister in the first Anastasiades government from 2014 to 2018. George Savvides was the Justice and Public Order Minister in the second Anastasiades government between 2019 and 2020, while Savvas Angelides served as the Defence Minister during the same period.
What does this all imply? All three individuals were part of the Anastasiades government, which oversaw the infamous citizenship-by-investment scheme. They were involved in making decisions on numerous citizenship applications, many of which were later found to be illegal, as highlighted in the Nikolatos Committee report.
Notably, two of the three are specifically named in the report as bearing additional responsibility for approving golden passports with which they had an indirect interest through associated law firms or individuals.
To remind readers, the report addressed the conflict of interest between the President and ministers in making decisions related to family or other connected businesses. It emphasised that the Cabinet failed to adhere to the Code of Conduct, which required them to declare any direct or indirect interest in matters they were deciding upon. The report specifically mentioned the President, under whose presidency 50 investor citizenship applications promoted by a law firm partly owned by his daughters were approved.
It also named two ministers, one of them being Marios Demetriades. He participated in meetings where 137 investor citizenship applications promoted by a law firm associated with him were approved. The other was Savvas Angelides, the former Defence Minister and current Assistant Attorney General, who participated in meetings approving three citizenship applications promoted by a firm employing an individual connected to him.
While the report does not explicitly mention George Savvides, who served as a minister in the same government that made thousands of illegal passport decisions, he cannot evade responsibility.
The crux of the matter is that two ministers from the scandal-ridden Anastasiades government are now prosecuting another minister from the same administration for his role in granting illegal passports.
Although the three former ministers did not serve simultaneously, they all signed off on decisions related to illegal passports. How provocative and inconsistent is the action of the Savvides-Angelides duo?
All three share a portion of the blame for damaging the country’s reputation, yet only one is facing charges, brought by the other two. One might argue that the difference lies in Demetriades being accused of criminal offences, while the other two are not. However, their clear responsibility for their involvement in the scandal is undeniable and confirmed by the Nikolatos report.
The report specifically mentions Angelides as bearing the same political responsibility, as highlighted earlier. This political responsibility led to international shame. A ‘crime’ far more serious than a criminal offence. Yet, one remains untouched and proceeds to prosecute the other.
To clarify, this article does not aim to exonerate or downplay Marios Demetriades’s potential guilt. As we previously stated, if he maintains his innocence, he should identify the real culprits, as he has suggested in his statement, whether referring to Anastasiades or others.
Otherwise, he should remain silent, as concealing the guilty in cases that shame the nation is akin to complicity.
What we must emphasise is the provocative inconsistency of the two prosecutors. As members of the scandal-plagued government, they insist on leading the institution responsible for prosecuting those involved in the scandal in which they were implicated.
From a moral standpoint, their position is highly questionable and borders on inappropriate conduct.
