Lawyer Achilleas Emilianides has called on the government to explain reports that 21 people were appointed to semi-state organisations despite not having submitted applications.
He said the government must clarify whether it selected individuals outside the list prepared by the Advisory Council and provide the full reasoning behind any such decision.
Government decisions require justification
In a social media post, Emilianides referred to the 2023 decision establishing the Advisory Council. Under its provisions, any decision by the Council of Ministers to appoint individuals who were not included on the Council’s list must be fully justified.
He argued that, since the reform was presented as a flagship initiative designed to strengthen transparency and public participation, the government should have disclosed from the outset whether appointments had been made outside the list.
If so, he said, it should also have explained the reasons for departing from the recommendations, based on the criteria it had itself published.
“When people submit applications expecting to be considered for an appointment, only for individuals outside the list to be selected, trust in political institutions is eroded even further,” Emilianides said.
Concerns over the Advisory Council model
Emilianides said he had raised concerns about the Advisory Council when it was established in March 2023.
He argued at the time that its creation was based on an apolitical approach to the management of public-law organisations, despite such bodies often serving as instruments through which governments implement policy, within the limits set by law.
Transforming their largely unpaid boards into technocratic bodies was therefore not straightforward, he said. Their role is closely connected to a government’s ability to implement its programme, meaning the government must ultimately remain accountable for its choices.
Political authority and public administration
Emilianides also referred to a Supreme Court plenary ruling concerning the submission of candidate lists by political parties.
He said the ruling effectively gave the Council of Ministers complete authority to appoint anyone it wished, producing an outcome that ultimately conflicted with the objective the court had sought to achieve.
According to Emilianides, Cypriot courts frequently overlook political realities and adopt rigid principles that are often difficult to apply and do not arise directly from the Constitution.
He distinguished between the necessary prohibition of administrative decisions based on political criteria and the more questionable principle of completely separating political authority from public administration when appointing members to the boards of public-law organisations.
Many of these organisations, he noted, are specifically tasked with implementing government policy.
Parliamentary approval proposed
Emilianides maintained that the Advisory Council could serve a useful purpose when appointments concern genuinely independent authorities, provided the government is clearly prohibited from selecting candidates outside its recommendations.
He argued, however, that this model is unsuitable for appointments to semi-state organisations.
The more appropriate solution, he said, would be comprehensive constitutional reform requiring Parliament to approve such appointments. This would balance the government’s decision-making authority with meaningful parliamentary scrutiny.
