The Independent Anti-Corruption Authority issued a statement regarding the corruption investigation against the Assistant Attorney General, Savvas Angelidis.
The Independent Anti-Corruption Authority (“the Authority”) makes the following Announcement:
Lifting of the Prohibition on Disclosure of Information Regarding Authority Investigations
1. Pursuant to the legislation that provides for the establishment and operation of the Authority (Law 19(I)/2022), a ban is imposed on the publication of information received in the context of its mission, without securing the approval of the Transparency Commissioner.
2. In the present case, the Commissioner approved the lifting of the ban and the Authority, in its Session, decided to issue this Notice.
3. The Commissioner’s reasoning for the above removal is that in the present case a great deal of publicity had already been given and personal data and details of the 3 Complaints had been published, so for the purposes of transparency it was considered correct that the results of the Investigations should also be made public.
The Complaints
4. The Complaints were submitted anonymously to the Auditor General, who decided that since they did not fall within his own competence but related to corruption issues, he forwarded them to the Authority.
5. Specifically, these are the cases of 3 natural persons who were facing criminal cases for which the Assistant Attorney General, Mr. Savvas Angelidis, registered suspension of criminal prosecution.
6. The allegations contained in said Complaints are that the Assistant Attorney General was associated amicably and professionally with the said Defendants, at a time prior to his appointment as Assistant Attorney General and due to incompatibility should have been excluded from consideration and receiving decision on their cases, if there were other motives for taking the specific decisions to suspend criminal prosecution. And his actions may constitute an abuse of power, an offense which is an offense of corruption.
Preliminary examination
7. The Authority, conducting a Preliminary Examination of the above allegations as provided for by the current legislation and Regulations, took into account, on the one hand, the jurisprudence on the existence of an unchecked power of the Attorney General (in this case the Assistant Attorney General) to suspend criminal prosecutions and on the other hand the allegations contained in the Complaints.
8. The Authority, evaluating all the data, decided to proceed with the investigation of the above Complaints and appointed as their Inspection Officers:
1. George Kampanella, Solicitor from London,
2. Tanveer Qureshi, Barrister from London,
3. George Liasidis, Lawyer from Nicosia
The research
9. The said Inspection Officers conducted an Investigation on the basis of the Terms of Reference given to them by the Authority and for this purpose, called witnesses for testimony.
10. All the witnesses who were summoned, appeared before them and answered all the questions put to them, except one of whom explicit reference will be made below.
The Reports of the Inspection Officers
11. Upon completing the Investigation and studying all the testimony and data, the Inspection Officers proceeded to draw up 3 Reports (findings) which they submitted to the Authority for approval.
12. In the first two Complaints, in which the Complainant is the Assistant Attorney General Mr. Savvas Angelidis, no corruption offense, i.e. abuse of power, is established. The testimony did not establish any acquaintance, either personal or professional, between the Complainant and the Accused for whom the criminal prosecution had been suspended.
13. The Third Complaint: In this Complaint, in addition to the Assistant Attorney General, the Complainant was also a Senior Police Officer.
14. The Officer in question was accused of interceding outside the scope of his duties with the Assistant Attorney General, in order to grant suspension of criminal prosecution to the Accused.
15. Coming to testify, the Officer presented two documents to the Inspection Officers, but refused to answer the questions put to him, citing that the documents related to “sensitive matters”.
16. In the Report it is stated that the Officer with his refusal was being obstructive and that there was no legitimate reason for his refusal.
17. The Report concludes that such behavior may constitute an offense under it Article 8 (b), of Law 19(I)/2022.
18. With reference to the facts of the third Complaint, it is admitted that the Assistant Attorney General had received and signed the decision to suspend criminal prosecution of the Accused, whom he had previously represented as a lawyer in another criminal case. Therefore, the Assistant Attorney General’s position was that, because the recommendation for suspension of criminal prosecution was made by a specific Police Department, he did not connect the person and name in question with that of his former client.
19. In the Report on the third Complaint, on the above points, the concern of the Inspection Officers regarding the non-existence of a statutory procedure for ascertaining cases of conflict of interest is recorded. Under the existing system, such matters are left solely to the memory capacity of the officials which is not satisfactory.
20. Despite the above positions, the Inspection Officers concluded that there is insufficient evidence for the existence of corruption offenses regarding the third Complaint.
Existence of Good Faith on the part of the Auditor General
21. Because during the Investigation procedures, there was a questioning of the Auditor General’s intentions regarding the promotion of complaints received by his Service to the Authority, the Inspection Officers submitted relevant questions to the witnesses.
22. In all Complaints, the Inspection Officers decide that they were satisfied that the forwarding of Complaints to the Authority, by the Auditor General, was done in good faith.
Legal Opinion on the subject of Abuse of Power
23. The Inspection Officers were asked, since the Complaints related to abuse of power, to give an opinion regarding the interpretation of the term “abuse of power”.
24. The Article 105, of the Criminal Code, Chapter 154makes abuse of power a criminal offense and separates it in cases where it is done without benefit, which is a misdemeanor (imprisonment of up to 2 years) and in cases where there is benefit itself, which is a felony (imprisonment of up to 7 years).
25. The Authority was, from the beginning, of the opinion that any manifestation of abuse of power constitutes a crime of corruption, as determined by the Law 19(I)/2022.
26. Given that almost all the Complaints that the Authority has before it, result in an abuse of power without its own benefit, any other interpretation would lead to their rejection due to lack of competence.
27. This opinion was also expressed by the Inspection Officers in their Opinion with reference to Cypriot jurisprudence and decisions, to English jurisprudence and jurisprudence of other countries and to Treaties and Regulations of the European Union.
28. We quote the relevant passage in full:
“24. To this extent, we disagree with any suggestion that an abuse can only arise if and when one profits from an act. That in our view, would make a mockery of what the European law on corruption intended.”
Examination by the Authority of the 3 Reports of the Inspection Officers
29. The Authority at a Session on December 28, 2023, adopted and approved in their entirety all 3 above Reports.
30. Consequently, the possibility of the existence of a corruption offense is not established in any of them, neither in relation to the Assistant Attorney General, nor to the Police Officer.
31. Nevertheless, the Authority considers that the Police Officer may have committed an offense in violation of Article 8 (b), of Law 19(I)/2022, by his refusal to answer the questions put to him.
32. Therefore, the Authority will forward all relevant documents to the Attorney General with the recommendation for criminal prosecution of the Officer in question.
Independent Anti-Corruption Authority
