‘Sandy’ Case Set for December Trial as Defence Challenges Referral

Header Image

Makarios Drousiotis and Kyriaki Kyriakou face 101 charges, with the defence arguing the case should be heard by a District Court rather than a Criminal Court.

The criminal case known as the “Sandy” case will proceed to trial before the Nicosia Permanent Criminal Court on 15 December 2026, after the first court appearance of defendants Makarios Drousiotis and Kyriaki Kyriakou, known as “Sandy.”

From the outset, the defence signalled a key element of its legal strategy, challenging the decision to refer the case to the Criminal Court rather than the District Court.

101 charges filed

The indictment against the two defendants contains a total of 101 charges, including:

  • Forgery.
  • Uttering forged documents.
  • Publication of false news.
  • Harassment.

The most serious allegations relate to forgery and circulation of forged documents, offences carrying prison sentences of up to seven years.

Although Wednesday's appearance before the Nicosia District Court was procedural in nature and related to referral for trial, several issues emerged that are expected to feature prominently as the case progresses.

Defence to challenge Criminal Court referral

Lawyers for Drousiotis indicated that they intend to raise preliminary objections.

One of the main arguments expected to be advanced is that the case should be heard before a District Court rather than a Criminal Court.

During the proceedings, defence counsel argued that the indictment did not disclose a case suitable for trial before the Criminal Court and reserved the right to challenge the issue during subsequent proceedings.

Questions raised over legal representation

The participation of the law firm of Christos Clerides in Drousiotis' defence team has also attracted attention in legal circles.

At Wednesday's hearing, Alexandros Clerides appeared on behalf of the defence. The firm's involvement has been noted because of family links to Nikos Clerides, who was reportedly investigated in relation to the same matter.

Drousiotis is expected to be represented during the trial by Leto Kariolou and Alexandros Clerides.

Kyriakou seeks legal aid

The proceedings also marked the first public appearance of Kyriaki Kyriakou, ending the mystery surrounding the identity of the individual known as "Sandy."

Kyriakou applied for legal aid, with the request expected to be examined after a welfare report is prepared regarding her personal circumstances.

The appointment of legal representation may also clarify whether she maintains the content of earlier statements attributed to her, in which she allegedly admitted creating the disputed messages at the centre of the case.

Trial begins in December

Representing the prosecution, Alexia Siapani said the Attorney General had determined that the charges were not suitable for summary trial proceedings and should therefore be heard directly by the Criminal Court.

The presiding judge noted that, while the offences could potentially be heard summarily, the court was obliged to follow the Attorney General's position and refer the defendants for trial.

The case was consequently scheduled before the Permanent Criminal Court of Nicosia for 15 December 2026 at 9am.

Both defendants signed €10,000 bail guarantees and were released pending their next appearance.

Drousiotis alleges politically motivated prosecution

Speaking outside court, Drousiotis described the proceedings as a retaliatory process linked to his book Mafia State.

He argued that the case was connected to issues examined by the Independent Authority Against Corruption and ongoing criminal investigations.

"Instead of being treated as a protected witness, as the state and its institutions should have done, I am being referred to the Criminal Court through what I consider an abusive process," he said.

Drousiotis further maintained that even if the charges were ultimately found to have merit, the matter should still be heard by a District Court rather than by the Criminal Court.

He also claimed the judge had indicated that the case would ordinarily be suitable for District Court proceedings but was obliged to refer it because the Attorney General had requested trial before the Criminal Court.

According to Drousiotis, this constituted evidence that the referral was punitive in nature.