The Independent Authority Against Corruption has completed an investigation into a complaint submitted by a retired National Guard officer, concluding that there was no evidence to support allegations of corruption against any of the 10 individuals named.
According to the Authority, the complaint was directed at 10 individuals, including former senior officials and public office holders of the Republic of Cyprus.
The allegations included claims of possible forgery and circulation of a forged document for the purpose of facilitating acts of corruption, as well as alleged abuse of power and improper influence.
The investigation focused on the conduct of the individuals concerned and on decisions taken by competent boards regarding the complainant's professional advancement, with the aim of determining whether any actions met the legal definition of corruption under the legislation governing the Authority.
Three inspectors appointed
To investigate the case, the Authority appointed three inspection officers in November 2025 to evaluate the allegations and gather evidence.
They were:
- Christos Philippou, former President of a District Court.
- Dimitra Kousiou, former Family Court judge.
- Lawyer Costas Velaris.
Under their terms of reference, the inspectors examined whether the conduct of former senior officials could constitute abuse of power or improper influence and whether decisions affecting the complainant's career progression contained elements that could amount to corruption.
The Authority noted that all individuals invited to appear before the inspectors cooperated fully and provided the information and evidence requested.
Unanimous findings
Following the completion of the investigation and an assessment of all testimony and evidence, the three inspectors submitted a unanimous report to the Authority.
The report was subsequently approved by the Transparency Commissioner and the members of the Authority.
According to the announcement:
"For none of the individuals complained against is there evidence establishing or substantiating any act of corruption."
The Authority further stated that the evidence collected revealed no wrongdoing falling within its remit in relation to any of the 10 individuals named in the complaint.
It added that the evaluation of the investigative material led to the rejection of all allegations made by the complainant.
Why the names were not released
The Authority also explained why it chose not to publish the names of the 10 individuals involved.
According to the announcement, the decision was based on the fact that no wrongdoing had been established against any of them.
The Authority said that, in the case of one individual whose identity had already received widespread publicity, it applied Regulation 15 of the relevant rules and sought consent for the publication of that person's name.
However, no response was received.
As a result, the Authority decided not to include the names of any of the individuals in its public statement.
Publication restrictions lifted
The Authority noted that information obtained during its investigations is normally subject to publication restrictions under Law 19(I)/2022, which governs its establishment and operation.
In this case, the Transparency Commissioner approved the lifting of those restrictions under Article 18(1) of the legislation, after which the Authority formally decided to issue a public statement.
The Authority said the decision was taken because the case had already attracted public attention and details relating to the complaint had previously been reported.
The announcement concludes by confirming that no act of corruption was established against any of the 10 individuals named in the complaint and that all allegations made by the retired military officer were rejected.
