A fresh investigation into Cyprus' black surveillance van case may now be possible after Attorney General Giorgos Savvides acknowledged that a complaint against Assistant Attorney-General Savvas Angelides was not examined during the original criminal inquiry.
In a written statement issued on Tuesday, Savvides confirmed that allegations of a potential conflict of interest involving Angelides were not investigated by independent criminal investigator Elias Stefanou, whose inquiry into the surveillance van case concluded in 2021.
The development has prompted renewed calls for the Anti-Corruption Authority to revisit the matter and proceed with an investigation into allegations submitted against Angelides in 2023.
Complaint falls outside 2021 investigation
According to Politis, the complaint against Angelides was filed with the Anti-Corruption Authority in 2023 by former auditor-general Odysseas Michaelides, two years after the original criminal investigation into the surveillance van affair had been completed.
In his latest statement, Savvides questioned how the Anti-Corruption Authority concluded that earlier investigations had covered allegations against Angelides.
"How did the Authority conclude that the investigation carried out by the Police and the independent criminal investigator covered complaints against the assistant attorney-general submitted in 2023, when the black van investigation was completed in 2021?" he stated.
The admission is being interpreted as confirmation that the complaint against Angelides was never examined as part of the original inquiry.
Calls for a new investigation
The Anti-Corruption Authority is now facing growing pressure to proceed with a new investigation that would examine allegations relating specifically to Angelides.
Politis argues that if Savvides' position is that there was no cover-up and that the complaint was never investigated, there should be no objection to a fresh inquiry.
At the same time, Transparency Commissioner and Anti-Corruption Authority chairman Haris Pogiatzis has previously stated that the Authority had intended to conduct a broader investigation covering all aspects of the surveillance van case.
Dispute over what was communicated
The controversy has also exposed a disagreement between Savvides and Pogiatzis over what information was exchanged before the Authority decided not to proceed.
Pogiatzis maintains that the Legal Service was aware that the proposed investigation would include allegations against Angelides.
According to his account, a meeting held on 29 July 2026 made it clear that Angelides would fall within the scope of the proposed inquiry and that the assistant attorney-general left the meeting once it became apparent that he could be examined as part of the investigation.
Savvides rejects that interpretation.
He argues that the Authority's written terms of reference contained no mention of an investigation into Angelides and that his response addressed only the matters specifically listed.
London investigators identified
According to Politis, the Anti-Corruption Authority had already selected two UK-based legal professionals to conduct the proposed investigation.
The newspaper identified them as George Kampanella, a solicitor, and Tanveer Qureshi, a barrister.
The pair previously investigated complaints against Angelides relating to decisions to suspend criminal prosecutions. Those inquiries did not establish evidence of corruption.
Allegations against Angelides
The complaint submitted by Michaelides focuses on alleged conflicts of interest connected to the surveillance van case.
Among the issues raised are professional links involving Angelides' brother and associates of Tal Dilian, the former Israeli intelligence officer whose company was linked to the surveillance van.
The complaint also refers to a company reportedly registered through the law firm where Angelides had been a partner before becoming defence minister in 2018.
Michaelides argued that these matters became particularly significant because Angelides later participated in decisions relating to the suspension of criminal proceedings involving Dilian and others connected to the case.
Law allows further inquiry
The report notes that current legislation does not prevent the Anti-Corruption Authority from launching a new investigation even where an earlier criminal inquiry has already taken place.
As an example, Politis refers to a previous case involving Marinos Sizopoulos, where the Authority's examination reportedly uncovered new information despite an earlier criminal investigation that had not resulted in prosecutions.
The newspaper argues that the same principle could apply to the surveillance van case if the Authority decides to proceed.
