Over the past two weeks, as public debate has unfolded around the Anti-Corruption Authority’s report on the ‘mafia state’, two parallel but closely interconnected fronts have effectively opened. The first concerns the serious institutional deadlock that has emerged regarding the investigation of the report’s findings, while the second relates to the fierce political confrontation that has erupted between DISY and AKEL – a clash which many believe already marks the beginning of the road towards the 2028 presidential election.
At the institutional level, the main challenge does not relate solely to the content of the report but primarily to how the investigation process can proceed. The decision by the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General to recuse themselves from handling the case, due to their relationship with former President Nicos Anastasiades, created an unprecedented institutional vacuum. The inability of the Prosecutorial Council to take on the case, citing its institutional link to the leadership of the Legal Service, confirmed that the problem is not merely procedural but touches the core of how institutions function.
Deadlock
The government’s decision to appoint independent criminal investigators was presented as an attempt to overcome the deadlock. However, this solution does not appear to address the central issue. Investigators may gather evidence and complete their inquiry, but the final decision to bring criminal charges rests exclusively with the Attorney General. Since he has already declared his recusal from the case due to a conflict of interest, it remains unclear who will ultimately take that decision.
Discussion about appointing an independent public prosecutor, drawing on the precedent of the former Deputy AG Rikkos Erotokritou case, has resurfaced with renewed momentum. Yet even in this scenario, a new constitutional issue arises, as there is no clear answer as to who holds the authority to make such an appointment when the Attorney General himself has stepped aside. The result is a picture of institutional paralysis, where every potential solution encounters new legal and constitutional obstacles.
This situation fuels criticism of the Legal Service and revives debate over the need for institutional reform. The separation of the Attorney General’s powers – so that advisory functions towards the executive are clearly distinguished from prosecutorial authority – is once again being put forward as a key reform proposal.
Institutional vacuum
At the same time, an increasing number of voices argue that restoring confidence in institutions requires the resignation of both the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General, so that no shadow remains over the handling of the case. As these voices grow louder, so too do those – mainly from within DISY – who insist that institutional decisions cannot be taken under political pressure or public discontent, but only through constitutionally prescribed procedures.
Political confrontation
Beyond its institutional dimension, the report has triggered strong political tremors, particularly in relations between the two main parties, DISY and AKEL. The confrontation concerns not only the report itself but also how each party seeks to interpret its political implications.
Within DISY, the case has also sparked internal debate regarding the position of former President Nicos Anastasiades. Although he ultimately announced that he would abstain from party collective bodies until the investigation is completed, this decision has not prevented public discussion over whether it should have been taken from the outset.
No one can ignore the different voices within DISY, such as that of the party’s parliamentary spokesman Demetris Demetriou. His stance has diverged both regarding the current role of the former president within party bodies and his clear position that, given how events have unfolded, the resignation of the leadership of the Attorney General’s office now appears to be the only viable option.
The official position of DISY’s leadership, however, focuses on keeping the case strictly within the realm of justice, without acknowledging that the recusal of the Attorney General’s leadership does not, in itself, guarantee the objectivity of the ongoing process. The party invokes the presumption of innocence, arguing that no one can be considered guilty before procedures are completed and final decisions reached. At the same time, it insists that all those potentially involved must be investigated without exceptions and without political interference.
Support and reactions
For a number of DISY figures, publicly expressing enthusiasm and approval following Nicos Anastasiades’ press conference this week does not constitute interference. Indicative are the reactions of deputy party leader Efthymios Diplaros and Limassol MP Fotini Tsiridou, who rushed to praise the former president after he claimed that the accusations against him had been disproven, stating that he had responded clearly and overturned the allegations.
Criticism
However, this stance forms the core of AKEL’s criticism. The party argues that DISY systematically avoids acknowledging any political responsibility for Anastasiades’ decade in power, limiting the discussion exclusively to the criminal dimension of the case. According to AKEL’s argument, political responsibility is not identical to criminal liability and can be assessed independently of whether prosecutions arise.
On the other hand, DISY accuses AKEL of attempting to politically exploit the report, using the case to undermine the previous administration and shape the political landscape ahead of the 2028 presidential election. In this context, it recalls previous reports – such as those on Mari, Dromolaxia and the financial crisis – arguing that AKEL treats such findings selectively, depending on its political interests.
AKEL rejects these accusations, insisting that the essence lies in the need for full clarification of the case and the restoration of institutional credibility. It argues that society expects clear answers regarding responsibilities arising from the report, and that political accountability cannot be suspended pending the outcome of a possible criminal process.
The levers of power
The only certainty is that the ‘mafia state’ case has already become one of the most serious institutional and political tests of recent years — and rightly so. Because it does not merely concern the actions of a president, but the emergence of a system that exercises both vertical and horizontal control over all levers of power in the country.
In short, on the one hand, the institutional deadlock in investigating the report’s findings is testing the resilience of institutions and highlighting gaps in the existing constitutional framework. On the other hand, the fierce confrontation between DISY and AKEL shows that the case has already taken on strong political characteristics, with the two major parties effectively drawing the lines of conflict that are likely to define the landscape up to the 2028 presidential election.
The decisions taken in the coming period will not only determine the course of this particular case but will also shape the level of public trust in justice, in institutions and, ultimately, in the political system as a whole.
