The seriousness and scale taken on by the allegations and claims made by journalist Makarios Drousiotis make an immediate investigation of all aspects imperative. Even the mere reference to paedophilia and rape should have triggered alarm bells and launched a criminal investigation. Such an investigation, as emerges from a specific provision of the 2014 Law on the Prevention and Combating of Sexual Abuse and Sexual Exploitation of Children and Child Pornography, should have taken place years ago, at least if those who publicly stated that they knew had not failed to report the matter to the Police.
Criminal liability therefore also extends to those who knew, at minimum, of allegations involving paedophilia and rape. It is important to clarify that any report or notification to the Police under the obligation arising from the law does not mean confirmation of the allegations. The burden shifts to the Police to investigate all complaints.
Legal obligation to report suspected abuse
Regarding the obligation of anyone aware of such information to file a report, Article 30 of the law, titled “Reporting suspected sexual exploitation and abuse of children and forwarding of complaints”, states:
(1) Any person who fails to report an incident that comes to their knowledge involving a child or a child with intellectual or mental disability in offences provided for in Articles 6 to 10 and 15 of this Law, or who fails to forward a relevant complaint, commits an offence and, upon conviction, is liable to imprisonment of up to fifteen (15) years or a fine of up to twenty thousand euros (€20,000), or both.
(2) For the purposes of this Article, when sentencing, the court treats as an aggravating factor the fact that the person who failed to report or forward a complaint is an educator, social services officer or practising lawyer, a member of the police force, or a health professional such as a psychiatrist, physician of any specialty, nurse, psychologist or other professional with related activities.
(3) When sentencing for the offence provided for in subsection (1), it is not a defence that the persons referred to in subsection (2) failed to report due to professional confidentiality.
Who admitted they knew
Based on facts currently available, at least three individuals have publicly admitted they knew, while no complaint had been filed with the Police prior to the social media posts by Makarios Drousiotis.
Beyond Drousiotis himself, lawyer Nikos Clerides, who represents “Sandy”, and Christos Clerides, former president of the Cyprus Bar Association, both said they were aware of the messages or parts of them. Nikos Clerides said that Sandy approached him and provided the material, which he later stated he would hand over to the Police on a USB device. Christos Clerides said he was briefed by Nikos Clerides. Drousiotis has stated publicly that all the material he refers to was provided to him by Sandy.
A further significant point arising from subsection (3) of Article 30 is that no one is legally shielded by professional privilege if they failed to inform the Police about offences of this nature.
Developments centred on “Sandy”
Regarding the other aspects of Drousiotis’s serious allegations, developments continue rapidly. Drousiotis is preparing a structured written statement covering all the material he claims to possess, as agreed with the investigative team formed at Police Headquarters CID. Nikos Clerides, Sandy’s lawyer, said after giving a lengthy statement at Police Headquarters that he will submit all the material his client provided.
At the same time, a new controversy erupted over the summoning of Sandy to give a statement and what she allegedly told investigators. According to a report by Philenews, Sandy testified last week and reportedly told investigators that the messages were not authentic, explaining how they were created. She also allegedly said she did not wish to submit a formal complaint. According to the same report, Police treated these claims with caution and are examining whether the key witness gave her statement under pressure or panic.
Reaction from Clerides and Drousiotis
Makarios Drousiotis reacted strongly to the report regarding Sandy’s testimony. In a post, he said:
“First the Police leaked that Sandy spoke and said the messages were fake. A headline ready to go. Then they washed their hands of it… Not even KBG could write such a script. Impression‑management games and diversion tactics, food for the trolls. This won’t save the situation.”
Nikos Clerides also responded sharply. “If this information was leaked by the Police, it is a very serious matter,” he said. “When I went to give my statement last Saturday, I asked if she had testified and I was assured that she had not given any statement up to that point. If this information did indeed come from the Police and confidentiality was not safeguarded, then our trust in an impartial and credible investigation collapses, as does trust in maintaining confidentiality, which is essential.”
Unanswered questions
A week after Drousiotis’s initial post, the most fundamental question remains unanswered: are the messages circulating on social media and in media reports authentic or fake?
The selective publication of messages, even by media outlets abroad, does not help counter prejudice. Many citizens reasonably question how such material could be in the hands of lawyers and journalists but not immediately with the Police, so its authenticity could be properly assessed.
Meanwhile, all those affected by Drousiotis’s allegations have given statements to Police Headquarters CID and have filed complaints against Drousiotis for spreading false information.