The investigation into the highly publicised 'Sandy' case is now heading towards its conclusion. However, even if it is proven beyond any doubt that the case concerns a delusional and mentally disturbed woman, a portion of public opinion will likely remain unconvinced. This tendency is already evident on social media. Such scepticism is not accidental and is linked mainly to the perception that the criminal investigation carried out by the police does not sufficiently guarantee the fundamental principles of impartiality and independence.
The proposal to appoint independent criminal investigators – a proposal which, according to column information, was also supported by the Minister of Justice, Costas Fytiris – was not adopted. These independent investigators, who could have been lawyers specialising in criminal law, would have been able to complete the investigative work without distraction and without leaks, following the model currently seen in the videogate case. They would then have submitted their findings to the Law Office, accompanied by a reasoned recommendation as to whether there were grounds for criminal prosecution.
The investigation could also have been assigned to the Anti‑Corruption Authority, given that both the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General are allegedly implicated in the case. In one of Sandy’s messages, the two are presented as having “fixed” the Focus case. Had the inquiry been entrusted to the Anti‑Corruption Authority, there would also have been scope to appoint external investigators or inspectors from abroad, further strengthening the credibility and independence of the criminal investigation.
The Christodoulides method
However, President Nicos Christodoulides’ cabinet chose instead to seek assistance from FBI experts to assess the evidential material, creating the impression of reinforcing the credibility of the criminal process. In practice, though, this move functioned more as a communication tactic, allowing the investigation to remain in the hands of the police and under the guidance of the head of the Criminal Law Sector of the Law Office, prosecutor Elena Kleopa.
The guidance and supervision of a criminal investigation by the Law Office in a case in which its two leading figures are allegedly directly implicated raises serious issues regarding adherence to the fundamental principles of impartiality and independence. As has been repeatedly stressed, it is not enough for justice to be done – it must also be seen to be done. Caesar’s wife must not only be honest, but must also appear to be so.
The questions
Based on what has come to light publicly, Drousiotis’ allegations of corruption within the judiciary, along with references to Rosicrucians, rapes, paedophilia and related claims, appear to be collapsing like a house of cards. Nevertheless, critical questions continue to arise which, at least at the level of public debate, remain unanswered. For example:
-
Why did President Christodoulides and the Law Office not proceed with the appointment of independent criminal investigators, opting instead for an investigation conducted by the police under the guidance of the same Law Office, when the allegations by Drousiotis reportedly involve its two leading officials?
-
Former Attorney General Costas Clerides is said, in testimony, to have admitted that after threats were made against his brother, lawyer Nicos Clerides, he sent a message to former Supreme Court judge Michalakis Christodoulou, after which the threatening messages suddenly stopped. It therefore legitimately raises the question of why the former judge allegedly threatened Nicos Clerides, and whether the content of the threatening messages that have come to light corresponds to reality.
-
The woman known as 'Sandy' is said to have admitted that the messages made public were fabricated and a product of her imagination, which she channelled to lawyer Nicos Clerides without revealing their true nature. It also emerges that she deliberately misled journalists Stelios Orphanides and Makarios Drousiotis, whom she met. Despite this, she was not arrested, which raises suspicions. Why, then, is “Sandy” treated differently? Is she intended to become a prosecution witness?
-
Where is 'Sandy' today? According to information obtained by the column, she is under discreet police protection. Usually it is victims who are protected, not perpetrators. Why this treatment?
