A new development emerged on Friday in the ongoing criminal trial linked to the Al Jazeera exposé and the 'golden passports'.
The prosecution submitted a formal request under Article 26 for the court to summon lawyer Andreas Pittadjis as a witness. The defence team for defendant Christakis Giovani, however, decried the move as an “abuse of process” and a serious violation of the accused’s fundamental rights.
Pittadjis summoned for cross-examination
Prosecutor Charis Karaolidou submitted the request to summon Pittadjis, aiming to cross-examine him regarding email communications submitted by Giovani’s defence, specifically documents marked as Exhibits 85, 90, and 91.
These exhibits were introduced by Giovani’s daughter during her testimony at an earlier hearing. The prosecution argued that they amount to hearsay and that the original author Pittadjis, must appear in court to testify directly.
“The witness did not merely produce the documents; she sought to verify the truth of their content,” Karaolidou said, arguing that the conditions of Article 26 of Chapter 9 for summoning witnesses had been met.
Defence: 'Irrational and provocative' request
Giovani’s lawyer, Giorgos Papaioannou, strongly objected, calling the prosecution’s request “irrational and provocative.” He reminded the court that Pittadjis had previously been removed from the fourth indictment in the same case.
Papaioannou accused the prosecution of attempting to build a case against Giovani through Pittadjis - whom they chose not to charge - thereby undermining the defendant’s right to a fair trial.
“It is both irrational and provocative for the prosecution to promote a line of alleged misconduct by Pittadjis, while having removed him from the fourth indictment. They denied him the opportunity to challenge prosecution witnesses and to testify in his own defence,” he said.
He also noted that Pittadjis had been dropped from the third indictment as well, specifically from Charges 4 and 5 related to the Al Jazeera revelations, where he was initially co-accused alongside former House Speaker Demetris Syllouris, Christakis Giovani, and Antonis Antoniou, Executive Director of the Giovani Group.
“Effectively, Pittadjis has been removed from all charges in this case. He never faced the first count, and now the prosecution seeks to treat him as a defence witness, a problematic manoeuvre,” Papaioannou added.
Delayed disclosure of 'supplementary agreement'
The defence also raised concerns about a “supplementary agreement” submitted late in the proceedings, after the defence had already begun presenting its case.
According to Papaioannou, the agreement was part of Exhibit 96, which the prosecution had in its possession at least ten days before the cross-examination of witness Elena Giovani, but failed to disclose in a timely manner.
“The failure to disclose the agreement on time trapped the defence. It violated our right to plan legal strategy and to properly advise Defendant 2 on whether to testify under oath,” he said, describing the move as “an abuse of process aimed at retroactively bolstering a weak case.”
Confidentiality concerns
The defence further argued that Pittadjis had acted as legal counsel not only for Russian investor Nikolai Gornovsky, but also for Defendant 2 and the Giovani Group. As such, his potential testimony could breach attorney-client privilege, particularly in light of Exhibit 62, which asserts confidentiality.
Papaioannou also accused the prosecution of selectively using cross-examination, questioning Elena Giovani, who had no knowledge of the supplementary agreements, instead of summoning the relevant official, Eleni Michael.
The court reserved its decision on whether to allow the prosecution’s request to summon Andreas Pittadjis as a witness.
The proceedings are scheduled to resume on 10 October at 11:00am.
