Fresh controversy has erupted over the appointment of Loizos Economides to the board of the Cyprus Telecommunications Authority (CYTA), with the workers' union ASET alleging an "obvious conflict of interest" and demanding that the appointment be withdrawn.
The issue follows concerns raised in a previous Politis report, which questioned the appointment of a former senior CYTA employee and former vice-president of a union representing the organisation's staff to the authority's highest decision-making body.
Economides worked at CYTA in a senior position and retired several years ago. However, his wife continues to be employed by the organisation, a fact that has now become central to the objections raised by ASET.
The union said it was surprised to see the retired employee's name included in the newly announced board and argued that the case should have received closer scrutiny from the Advisory Council before being submitted to the Council of Ministers for approval.
According to ASET, the appointment raises three incompatibility issues:
- His wife is employed by CYTA as the secretary to a senior executive, creating what the union describes as a first-degree family relationship prohibited under the relevant legislation.
- He serves as an elected member of the Management Committee of the Staff Pension and Benefits Fund, which has a direct relationship with CYTA.
- At the time he applied for the position, he was vice-president of a staff trade union and a member of its negotiating team.
ASET stressed that its objections do not concern Economides' qualifications or ability to serve on the board, but rather what it considers a clear case of conflict of interest.
The union argues that the appointment falls outside the framework and terms governing the Advisory Council's selection process and is prohibited under the relevant legislation.
It has therefore called on both the Council of Ministers and President Nikos Christodoulides to revoke the appointment immediately.
ASET also called for an investigation into whether the Advisory Council was aware of the circumstances that it says rendered the appointment incompatible with the rules governing board selections and, if responsibilities are identified, for accountability to follow.
