For a long period, the Independent Authority Against Corruption was at the centre of a systematic and, in several cases, coordinated campaign to discredit it. From the moment of its establishment, claims were made that its members did not enjoy real independence, but instead operated as extensions of those who had appointed them.
On social media and in the wider public discourse, an effort was made to entrench the perception that the Commissioner for Transparency, Haris Pogiatzis, along with the Authority’s four members, Makis Constantinides, Nikos Zambakidis, Tatiana Zachariadou and Elena Patera, would not even consider investigating potential responsibilities of former President Nicos Anastasiades, precisely because they had been appointed by him. In other words, the public was encouraged to view the Authority as lacking genuine autonomy, as a body constrained by political dependencies and incapable of scrutinising those regarded as the system’s powerful figures.
Deliberately, the Commissioner and the other members chose not to respond to the insinuations, coordinated narratives and disparaging commentary, nor to the malicious attacks directed at them. They did not seek confrontation, resort to communication tactics or attempt to win impressions. Instead, they remained focused exclusively on their institutional mission, allowing their work to speak for itself. And indeed, it did.
The report issued by the Authority on Mafia State, accompanied by a documented statement of nearly 70 pages detailing its findings, has silenced many critics. Above all, it has decisively dismantled the narrative that the Authority’s members were guided or influenced by Nicos Anastasiades, as had long been alleged and circulated in public discourse.
The investigation into the Mafia State case was extensive, thorough and exhaustive. It did not limit itself to a superficial recording of facts or selective evaluation. On the contrary, it is the result of a rigorous and methodical inquiry, faithful to the Authority’s core mission: to investigate, uncover and combat corruption without compromise, without exceptions and without discrimination.
Complaints and malice
Inevitably, those who had invested politically or personally in discrediting the Authority now find themselves in a difficult position. It is not hard to identify who is leading this effort. In most cases, they are individuals under investigation or previously examined by the Authority, as well as their legal representatives.
The defence of clients by lawyers is not only legitimate but expected within a state governed by the rule of law. However, there is a clear distinction between legitimate legal defence and the systematic attempt to undermine an independent institution whenever its findings do not serve the interests of those under scrutiny.
Strengthening powers
The most important message conveyed by the report, however, goes beyond the specific case. It concerns the very institution of the Anti-Corruption Authority itself. It demonstrates that the Republic of Cyprus now has a body capable of investigating matters of high public interest without regard to political actors, financial centres or powerful connections.
And precisely for this reason, the report opens a far more substantive debate: is it sufficient for the Authority merely to investigate and issue findings? The answer is clearly no.
For the past two years, a legislative proposal has been pending in parliament aimed at granting the Authority investigative powers. In other words, it would be able to conduct criminal investigations, take formal statements and recommend not only the initiation of criminal inquiries, as is currently the case, but also the filing of criminal charges for corruption offences.
In short, the Authority would be able to handle cases from beginning to end, without the involvement of the police and, potentially, with its own prosecutor bringing cases before the courts, with the aim of securing convictions of current and former officials and public servants implicated in corruption.
Responsibility lies with government and parliament
If the state, both the executive and legislative branches, truly wishes to demonstrate that the fight against corruption is not merely rhetorical but a strategic priority, it must proceed without delay to strengthen the Anti-Corruption Authority in a meaningful way.
This requires expanding its powers so that its investigations do not end at findings, but lead those implicated in acts of corruption, officials and public servants alike, before the courts of justice.
