The findings of the Anti-Corruption Authority on Mafia State are not a judicial decision, and rightly the Authority itself recalls the presumption of innocence and that only a court can determine guilt. However, it is a report of major institutional significance: it records possible criminal offences and potential individuals involved, which have been approved by the Authority and are being forwarded to the Attorney General for further action.
At the top of the list is former President Nicos Anastasiades, with references to seven cases involving, among other things, influence peddling and abuse of power. This alone is sufficient to make the next phase extremely sensitive—not only legally, but above all institutionally.
This is precisely where the issue of the Legal Service arises. Giorgos Savvides was appointed Attorney General during the presidency of Nicos Anastasiades, as was Deputy Attorney General Savvas Angelides, both of whom also served as ministers in his government. Even more critically, Savvides himself has publicly acknowledged a personal friendship of 40 years with the former President, insisting that he has never concealed it.
The issue, therefore, should not be allowed to slide into debates about whether the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General can handle the case objectively. The real issue is whether society can be convinced that such a serious case will be assessed without any shadow of conflict of interest—and that clearly now lies in the hands of the Attorney General. We all know—and he knows better than anyone—that in such cases, actual impartiality is not enough. Apparent impartiality is also required.
In conclusion, there is only one solution. There must be the appointment of an independent criminal investigator, or a team of investigators, with clear terms of reference, institutional distance from all involved parties and full ability to assess the evidential material. This would not constitute a reproach to the Legal Service. It would be an act of self-protection of the rule of law.
Because justice, when it concerns a former President, must not only be done—it must also be seen to be done.
