For ordinary people, it seems obvious: parliamentary immunity was never meant to let MPs dodge fines or commit crimes without being held to account.
There have been past cases of MPs abusing constitutional immunity for personal gain. Now, a new one has emerged: EDEK MP and former party leader Marinos Sizopoulos is a suspect in serious corruption-related offenses, including fraud, forgery, use of forged documents, and conspiracy to defraud. Yet he cannot be questioned unless he agrees, and only if the Attorney General first files a request that the Supreme Court then approves.
Under current law, no MP can be interrogated, prosecuted, or imprisoned without the consent of both the Attorney General and the Supreme Court, unless caught in the act of committing an offense punishable by at least five years in prison. In the past, Attorneys General have refused to seek the lifting of immunity despite possible criminal conduct, most recently in the case of former DISY MP Andreas Kyprianou. Apparently, he tried to photograph fellow MP Irini Charalambidou’s underwear, calling her a ‘slut,’ after she had photographed him and other MPs smoking inside Parliament in breach of the very anti-smoking law they had passed.
The Attorney General at the time, Costas Clerides ruled that the offense of indecent assault was not legally substantiated and that lifting Kyprianou’s immunity would not serve the public interest in light of the mutual insults exchanged.
Sizopoulos and the investigation
From the outset, and in public, Marinos Sizopoulos dismissed the allegations made in the Anti-Corruption Authority’s report, now under review by the Criminal Division of the Law Office. If he truly stands by his claims of innocence, he should not hide behind parliamentary immunity. It is expected that the Attorney General will apply to the Supreme Court to have that immunity lifted.
What must be clarified is who was behind the forged document that allowed Sizopoulos and three former partners to avoid nearly €1 million owed to a Cypriot bank on a non-performing loan. Did Sizopoulos know about the forged document, as the Anti-Corruption Authority claims? Or, as he maintains, was he the victim of a former partner? The truth can only emerge if the case is fully investigated and brought before Justice.
Anastasiades’ election pledge and the bill
Defining the limits of parliamentary immunity was an electoral pledge of Nicos Anastasiades during his first presidential term. In 2013, a relevant bill was drafted and submitted to Parliament by the Ministry of Justice under Ionas Nicolaou. After eight years, and intermittent debate, the Ministry withdrew it and re-submitted a revised version in January 2021 under Emily Yiolitis, where it still remains pending. The reason it has not advanced is the lack of the required majority.
Specifically, the bill is titled “The Thirty-Second Amendment to the Constitution Law of 2021” and was tabled in Parliament on January 14, 2021. It proposes amending Article 83 of the Constitution to limit MPs’ general immunity solely to the exercise of their official duties, replacing it with the following:
“MPs shall not be criminally prosecuted or held civilly liable for any opinion expressed or vote cast by them, or for any statement or act carried out by them in the exercise of their parliamentary duties.”
Blanket immunity
As it currently stands, Article 83 of the Constitution provides:
“Members of Parliament shall not be subject to criminal prosecution and shall not be civilly liable for any opinion expressed or vote cast by them in the House of Representatives. An MP may not, without leave of the Supreme Court, be prosecuted, arrested, or imprisoned for as long as they continue to be an MP. Such leave shall not be required for an offense carrying a prison sentence of five years or more, provided the offender is caught in the act. In such case, the Supreme Court, notified immediately by the competent authority, decides whether to allow prosecution or detention to continue as long as the offender remains an MP. If the Supreme Court refuses to grant permission for prosecution, the time during which the MP cannot be prosecuted is not counted toward the statute of limitations. If the Supreme Court refuses to grant permission to execute a prison sentence imposed on an MP by a competent court, execution of the sentence is postponed until the convicted person ceases to be an MP.”
Four MPs have had their immunity lifted
To date, the Supreme Court, upon request of the Attorney General, has lifted the immunity of four MPs so that they could be investigated and prosecuted for criminal offenses. Specifically:
- The most recent case was that of then-DISY MP and now independent MP Andreas Themistokleous. On February 10, 2016, the Supreme Court lifted his immunity for repeated speeding violations on motorways. He was convicted by the Nicosia District Court, fined, and had his driver’s license suspended for six months.
- A year earlier, in February 2015, the Supreme Court lifted the immunity of EDEK MP Fidias Sarikas so that charges of bribery, corruption, and abuse of power could be investigated. The offenses were committed when he was mayor of Paphos. He was convicted by the Paphos Assize Court to four years in prison for bribes received from contractors handling projects of the Paphos Sewerage Board.
- In 1984, the Supreme Court lifted the immunity of DISY MP and lawyer Giorgos Georgiou, who was charged and convicted to a prison sentence in a forgery case.
- In 1961, the Supreme Court lifted the immunity of Patriotic Front MP Lefkios Rodosthenous, who was charged and convicted to a prison sentence for extorting money from a citizen.
