The institutions of the Republic of Cyprus are busying themselves with the wrong things. They have discovered that we are under hybrid warfare and that certain forces are trying to harm the Republic of Cyprus. But based on what we have seen and heard, who is really humiliating the Republic of Cyprus in broad daylight?
“Anyone who has evidence that I took money should submit it,” the President of the Republic said after the circulation of a video showing his political associates discussing with foreign investors how they could, alongside their investments, support the President’s pre-election campaign or funds managed by his in-law, Filippa Karsera. Is this really the appropriate response from a President elected on a promise of zero tolerance for corruption?
We should remind the President that it is not necessary for someone to actually receive money to be found guilty. The intent to illegally obtain money can be enough. Let us not forget the reason why the former Assistant Attorney General of the Republic of Cyprus was dismissed. In that case, we were not dealing with an offset of his own deposits against his own debt, as was the case with Rikkos Erotokritou. Nor was it a “full support” type of statement, as in the Dimitris Syllouris episode linked to the Al Jazeera pseudo-investor. It was a case similar to that of former French President Nicolas Sarkozy.
What happened in that case? The then President of France was accused of receiving illegal campaign financing from billionaire Liliane Bettencourt through intermediaries. The money, as Giorgos Lakkotrypis clearly describes in the Cypriot context, flowed outside official accounts. Certain businesspeople subsequently enjoyed unlimited access to the presidential environment. During the trial, the argument “it was not proven that I personally received money” collapsed. Intent and the money trail were sufficient, leading to Sarkozy’s imprisonment.
What we saw
Today, based on what we saw and heard, Nikos Christodoulides has nowhere to stand. Certain facts involve his own people and relatives, with the illegal acts and irregularities observed being difficult to dispute.
In the video, Giorgos Lakkotrypis appears, a former fellow minister with Christodoulides in the Anastasiades government. He speaks as a friend and associate, referring to the cash the President allegedly needs for his election campaign. As he explains with ease, as if describing a routine process, the one million euros permitted by law for campaign expenses is not enough. So, according to the video, he took care to find undeclared donors for the campaign. The cash that the President allegedly needed was obtained in violation of the law on party and candidate financing. At the same time, cash transactions of this kind, if undeclared, constitute black money and therefore a criminal offence, amounting to money laundering.
This resembles the case of Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. Companies such as Petrobras and Lava Jato paid money through ostensibly legal fronts such as sponsorships, projects, and social programmes in order to secure state decisions. Funds were rebranded as “legal” through CSR schemes and social funds acting as intermediaries. The court convicted Lula, ruling that political responsibility existed even without proof of personal enrichment.
The in-law
In the video, through the conversation between the investors and the President’s in-law and Director of the Presidential Office, Charalambos Charalambous, we understand the route the money allegedly took, how funds reached the President’s coffers. In the case of Lakkotrypis’ clients, and one can imagine how many others could have done the same, Charalambous asked them to prepare a report together with Lakkotrypis on their investment. If there was a problem, the President would resolve it immediately.
In the same video, Lakkotrypis convincingly explains how the President resolved the problems of shareholders of a large pharmaceutical company. The company, he said, paid €75,000 and then “won the President’s attention”. One can only imagine how much attention companies that paid €200,000 or €500,000 received from the impeccably honest President of the Republic, Nikos Christodoulides.
Charalambous, however, appears more cautious. He tells investors they can give money in the form of CSR, Corporate Social Responsibility. This approach recalls the case of South Korean Prime Minister Park Geun-hye. Large companies funded “social” foundations controlled by a close associate of the President in exchange for political favours. The money did not go directly to the President but was channelled into “good causes”. The Korean court ordered Park’s removal and imprisonment.
The friend
In the same video, businessman Giorgos Chrysochos explains to investors his friendly, almost overly familiar relationship with the President and politicians in general. He says they speak daily, describing a relationship similar in frequency and intimacy to that one might have with a girlfriend. He also explains how much money he invests each year in the First Lady’s Fund and other events organised by the Presidency.
Could the President and the Director of his Office, in the name of transparency, provide a list of companies that were facilitated and the amounts they contributed for the benefit of society over recent years?
Into the fire
The President’s adviser, Victor Papadopoulos, told Politis Radio, and we do not wish to question him, that he would put his hand in the fire for the President’s honesty. To support this, he said the President even avoids dining with businesspeople in restaurants to prevent misunderstandings. He did not explain, however, whether beyond restaurants it is acceptable for the President to be hosted with his family in luxury villas belonging to developers or on the superyachts of billionaires. While answers would be welcome, it should be noted that restaurants and hospitality are not the most important issues.
What truly burns the President, and may even require him to consider resignation, is that serious, even criminal, offences are allegedly being committed in his name, offences that inevitably implicate him.
Instead of examining this possibility, the institutions of the Republic of Cyprus are again looking elsewhere. Our institutions, the Legal Service, the Police, the Intelligence Services, have discovered that we are under hybrid warfare and that some are trying to harm the Republic of Cyprus. But based on what we have seen and heard, who is humiliating the Republic of Cyprus in broad daylight?
In short, the Republic is not humiliated by those who expose illegality, even if their intentions are questionable. It is humiliated when access to the President is presented as a commodity, when black money is rebranded as social responsibility, and when institutions search for enemies instead of responsibilities.