That is not to say it does not matter whether the sources are credible. It does, and very much so. But the bigger problem is that the burden of proof has been shifted from institutions to private individuals.
Ultimately, the question that keeps returning with insistence concerns not only the content of the allegations, but above all the credibility of the people conveying them. We are living under the shadow of Santi and Anny Alexoui. How credible is “Santi” in the messages revealed by Makarios Drousiotis and Nikos Clerides? Likewise, how much weight can be given to the claims of Anny Alexoui, who is presented as exposing dark links stretching from Moscow to the Cyprus police and organised crime? The question, simple though it may seem, reveals a deeper pathology: the difficulty of Cypriot society in distinguishing between documented information and a contested narrative.
The public sphere in Cyprus has repeatedly been flooded with “revelations” that move somewhere between serious allegations and shadowy rumour. Names, brotherhoods, secret money trails, trusts, claims of manipulated court proceedings, gangsters ruling from inside prisons, and corrupt police officers combine to form a picture that resembles a thriller more than an organised state governed by the rule of law. The problem, however, is not only whether all this is true. The deeper problem is that, so far, there does not appear to be a mechanism capable of clarifying it in a convincing and definitive way. With Themistos Arnaoutis now at the helm, one hopes that this time the Police will manage to win back society’s trust.
Trust deficit
In a country where institutions have been under question for years, credibility cannot be taken for granted. The political system has suffered heavy blows, whether because of scandals or because of the sense of impunity that has taken root. The media, for their part, are often accused of selective coverage or of relationships of dependence. The result is an environment in which the citizen struggles to trust any source of information. Within this trust vacuum, “revelations” acquire disproportionate weight, not necessarily because of their quality, but because a credible alternative is absent.
The case of the allegations linked to brotherhoods and fixed trials is characteristic. On the one hand, there are individuals claiming to expose a shadow system of power operating behind the scenes. On the other, no coherent and irrefutable body of evidence has so far been presented that would allow full verification of those claims. This creates a grey zone in which everyone can project their own interpretation.
The same applies to the accounts of Anny Alexoui, who says she is reading from the diary of a former head of the Cyprus Intelligence Service, describing the activity of various criminal groups operating in Cyprus and accusing the authorities of inaction. In this way she has gained fervent followers, who reproduce the narrative that Cyprus is the most corrupt country in the world.
The video
As if the two women were not enough, there is also Videogate, in which the Israeli company Black Cube accepted responsibility for the entrapment of businessmen who are seen speaking with the head of the President’s Office, who promises presidential assistance for any investment they may wish to make. We had expected a finding on this matter a few days ago, but a two-month extension was granted, and we wait. At the same time, an Israeli convict was allowed to return to Israel, intensifying speculation that the video was in fact an act of blackmail directed at the Cypriot governmentitself. The same, and worse, can be seen in the Anti-Corruption Authority, which so far has taken four extensions for its finding on the so-called State-Mafia affair, which we have been awaiting since 2023.
This is precisely where the central issue lies. Why, in a country where, as many argue, indications of problematic practices are already well known and part of the evidence is in the hands of the authorities, does the discussion remain at the level of a whisper? Why is the public sphere flooded with unverified information instead of being dominated by official findings and clear answers? But even when such answers exist, what do we do with them? We have a public admission from the former President of the Republic that he travelled free of charge on the jet of a Saudi national who later received 40 passports of the Republic of Cyprus, yet no one was accused of bribery. We saw the former Speaker of the House on video promising full support so that an alleged businessman who had robbed his own country and wanted to invest the stolen money in ours could obtain a passport. The second was acquitted by court decision, because apparently we must no longer believe what our own eyes see. Presumably the first will follow.
Slowness
Why did we get here? The answer is not one-dimensional. On the one hand, there is the question of the slowness or reluctance of institutions to act. On the other, there is also a culture that tolerates rumour, reproduces it, and at times even prefers it to documented information. The combination of these two elements creates a dangerous environment in which truth is lost amid the noise of conflicting claims.
The result is a society that functions on suspicion, even when all the facts are before it. Citizens hear, read and repeat, but rarely reach clear conclusions. The lack of trust in institutions strengthens the tendency to give space to any “revelation”, regardless of its source. At the same time, the absence of clear answers from the competent authorities reinforces the conviction that “there must be something there”, even if it cannot be proven.
In this context, the question of Santi’s or Alexoui’s credibility acquires only relative significance. That is not to say it does not matter whether the sources are credible. It does, and very much so. But the bigger problem is that the burden of proof is transferred from institutions to private individuals. Instead of the authorities investigating and presenting documented findings, the public discussion depends on individuals who are not institutionally accountable.
This creates a vicious circle. Revelations generate noise, the noise creates pressure, but the pressure does not necessarily lead to institutional cleansing. On the contrary, it often results in even greater confusion. And the longer the confusion persists, the more the sense grows that the country is operating without clear rules and without effective control mechanisms.
For many, the image of the “leaking boat” on which we stand as citizens of this country is no exaggeration. It arises not only from specific allegations, but from years of accumulated experience. Citizens see scandals erupt and then be forgotten, investigations launched and never completed, responsibility never assigned. In such an environment, every new “revelation” finds fertile ground, regardless of its credibility. This is how both we and our country sink into disrepute.
The institutions
The way out of this situation cannot come through more rumours or through the constant repetition of unverified claims. Nor can we clone Hercules to clean the Augean stables. What is required is stronger institutions, transparency in procedures and, above all, political will for meaningful investigation. Without these, public debate will continue to move in a space where truth and fantasy coexist without clear boundaries.
In the end, the issue is not whether we decide to believe one source or another. The issue is to create the conditions that make such a discussion unnecessary. When institutions function effectively and transparently, rumours lose their power. But when that does not happen, the vacuum is filled by the whisper.
And the longer a country is allowed to function within that whisper, the further it drifts from the idea of institutional normality. It is not only a question of the credibility of individuals. It is a question of the credibility of the system itself.