In an interview with our newspaper, experienced lawyer Antonis Georgiou speaks with documented arguments about the issues surrounding the naturalisation program - first, the golden passport scandal and now, the problematic legislation on grounds to deprive a naturalised citizen of the citizenship. He emphasizes that the issue is not limited to a shadow of corruption, but touches on the very institutional existence of the Republic of Cyprus and the credibility of the judiciary.
Interview with Andreas Paraschos
Q: Mr Georgiou, how do you evaluate the issue of the constitutionality of the decisions on the “golden passports”?
A: This is a deeply constitutional issue. The Republic of Cyprus is based on the principle of the rule of law and the separation of powers. Citizenship is a fundamental political and legal right. Unfortunately, the “golden passports” scandal revealed that citizenship can be used as a commodity. The state could not ensure that the procedures were in accordance with the Constitution or international law. The bypassing of judicial process, the lack of transparency and the absence of objective criteria created a regime of arbitrariness. When decisions on naturalisations do not undergo judicial approval, the equality of all citizens is undermined while the institutional credibility of the Republic is put at risk. The rule of law is not an optional principle; it is a foundation of social cohesion and international credibility.
Q: The “golden passports” programme was cancelled in 2020. Are all the concerns in the past now?
A: I do not think so. The legislators recently introduced legislation creating grounds for revocation of citizenship from those citizens who were naturalised. The intention behind this new legislation was perhaps to rectify the “golden passports” mistakes. However, the new legislation still follows the same pattern – lack of transparency and arbitrariness.
Citizenship is an element of personality and social identity, a bond between citizen and state. Arbitrary deprivation can lead to a serious breakdown of the rule of law and create dangerous precedents for the future. This is not a simple theory; international experience shows that second-class citizens create a social and political climate of instability.
The citizen cannot be deprived of this bond by a simple administrative act without a judicial decision. When the Council of Ministers assumes the role of a judge, it directly violates Articles 12 and 30 of the Constitution, which guarantee the right to a fair trial.
Q: Can the public interest justify such decisions?
A: Not without strict conditions and transparent, sound procedures ensuring the right to be heard. The ultimate public interest is to maintain the rule of law. The public interest of revoking citizenship from a specific person cannot override the Constitution and due process that should be available to all citizens of our Republic.
The experience of “golden passports” shows that economic feasibility can be placed above institutional guarantees. The result has been a blow to the country’s credibility and injustice towards its citizens.
For example, investors who acquired citizenship without a real connection to the country removed any relationship of trust between the state and society. However, the public interest is only protected when its implementation complies with constitutional and international standards.
The legislation that was aimed at combating those who abused the citizenship-for-investments programme in fact targets all naturalised citizens irrespective of how they obtained the citizenship. Worse still, the legislation allows arbitrary decisions of the authorities without judicial scrutinise.
Q: What are the international examples that can teach us?
A: In countries such as France, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, the deprivation of citizenship takes place by administrative decision and for serious reasons, such as terrorism or a threat to national security, with full judicial oversight and the right to be heard. In Malta, the Court of Justice of the EU has imposed sanctions for the commercialisation of citizenship. These examples show that the Republic of Cyprus needs to establish strict procedures that respect international standards and the ECHR.
The experience of golden passports highlights that both naturalisation and revocation of citizenship must obey rules of transparency, objectivity and finality. Only in this way can arbitrariness be avoided and equality of all citizens be ensured.
Q: What risks are posed by the current citizenship revocation process?
A: Article 113(3)(e) of the Civil Registry Law provides for the deprivation of citizenship for anyone who is “wanted”, even if they have not been convicted. This provision violates the presumption of innocence and renders the process arbitrary, leaving citizens under constant threat.
This is precisely the case concerning clients of our firm, whose position is that they are being politically persecuted by a global superpower, often in the spotlight as accused of authoritarian practices. In fact, both in Cyprus and in Australia, confiscation of their property was sought. In Australia, after studying the facts and the procedure based on which they were found guilty, a conviction which also led to their being placed on Interpol’s wanted list, the Court refused to accept the registration of the relevant decision for confiscation of property because it ruled that “the respondents were not afforded natural justice or procedural fairness in the proceeding.”
A similar procedure is pending before the Nicosia District Court, where a decision has been reserved and the outcome is awaited with interest.
At the same time, there is a decision by a foreign court – and possibly also a Cypriot one – stating that the contested procedure does not comply with the guarantees of natural justice, and that, under Article 38(3)(c) of Law 188(I)/2007, the execution of the requested order would be contrary to the interests of justice. Yet, by the same decision, the same persons were deprived of their citizenship simply because they are wanted persons.
In other words, the right to reject the registration of the foreign decision and the confiscation of their assets in Cyprus - that is, the right to a fair trial and hearing - does not seem to be recognised in the citizenship revocation process, as their mere listing as wanted persons through Interpol alone leads to the revocation.
Cyprus distinguishes between naturalised and natural-born citizens. The latter are not at risk, while the former remain under constant threat, which cancels the concept of Cypriot citizenship as a common bond. The situation creates second-class citizens, undermining the cohesion of society and trust in the state.
Q: Can you give us examples of arbitrary decisions in an international context?
A: Imagine Syria or Russia issuing an arrest warrant for political or economic reasons. An example was given above. Imagine then what happens to a political dissident who loses his Cypriot citizenship because of such an arrest warrant and is then extradited to Russia or Syria.
It is also known that Russia has repeatedly used international mechanisms for political motivations. For example:
-
Abusive Red Notices/“diffusions” in Interpol against dissidents (e.g. Bill Browder, a well-known critic of Mr Putin), leading to arrests or travel hardship without any substantive judicial and procedural basis. The Guardianreports that “Russia has made a habit of using Interpol’s ‘red notice’ international arrest warrants in cases Kremlin critics believe to be politicised.”
-
The thinktank Fair Trials reports that “Interpol’s systems are being abused by countries around the world to persecute refugees, journalists and peaceful political activists.”
-
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) itself has found that the “misuse of Interpol Red Notices, extradition proceedings and other forms of interstate legal assistance such as anti-money laundering and anti-terror financing measures” constitutes one of the most important methods of transnational repression of dissidents and persons in general based purely on political criteria.
With such practices, and as our legislation stands, a decision or signal from Russia can have international consequences (e.g. through Interpol) without adequate guarantees of due process. In this context, given that Cypriot law allows for the revocation of citizenship based on foreign measures or warrants, the risk of arbitrariness is real: “security without rights” turns into imported political persecution and repression.
Therefore, under the current legal framework of Cyprus, the Republic of Cyprus could deprive the citizenship of a naturalised Cypriot, even without charges. Almost 200 states participate in Interpol, and decisions by any state can have consequences. Security without rights is arbitrariness.
The political arrogance of the past and the communication “shields” have created a climate of uncertainty. Citizens wonder about the security of their citizenship, which undermines the cohesion and stability of the state.
Q: What are the social consequences of these policies?
A: The distinction between naturalised and natural-born citizens creates inequalities and undermines citizens’ trust in the state. Investors, scientists and businesses need legal certainty, stability and predictability. Arbitrary deprivation of citizenship discourages investments and damages the country’s international image.
Political opacity leads to division, creates a sense of injustice and makes society insecure. Citizens’ trust can only be regained through transparency, accountability and respect for the Constitution.
Q: How could the Republic of Cyprus restore the trust of its citizens?
A: Restoration requires clear legal frameworks, transparency and a final judicial process. Any naturalisation or revocation of citizenship must be based on objective criteria and confirmed by a judge or independent authority, ensuring the right to be heard by the affected person. Only in this way will citizens feel that their rights are protected.
In addition, accountability is essential: those who participated in procedures that violated the Constitution or international obligations must be scrutinised and, if necessary, sanctioned. Trust is earned through actions, not just words.
Q: Are there international practices that we could adopt?
A: Of course. In Germany, France and the United Kingdom, naturalisation and revocation of citizenship are governed by a strict legal framework: they are decided administratively, with justification, the right to be heard and full judicial review or appeal. Furthermore, there is full transparency in every decision, except for very limited exceptions (public security, state secrets, etc.), publication of data and the possibility of appeal.
In contrast, in Cyprus, the discretion given to the authorities allowed arbitrary decisions, creating second-class citizens and international questioning of the country’s credibility. We can give an example again from experience: a person who requested the reasons for the revocation of citizenship received only a one-page document, which simply stated that he was deprived of citizenship because he was wanted by Interpol.
Following a request for a reasoned decision – within the 75-day period from the knowledge of the revocation, as provided for by the Constitution – he was referred to the Secretariat of the Council of Ministers; there, the reasoned decision was officially requested, but to date, there has not even been an acknowledgement of receipt of the letter. These are serious, fundamental procedural deficiencies that strike at the core of the right to a fair trial and hearing.
Q: What are the ethical implications of the decisions on golden passports?
A: The moral dimension is as important as the legal one. The state must serve the common good and respect justice and equality. When citizenship is turned into a product or a privilege that the authorities can take back at their discretion, social cohesion and trust between citizens and the state are affected.
The political arrogance of the past has created a climate of uncertainty and division. Citizens feel that decisions are made based on economic or political motives and not the Constitution. This is dangerous for democracy because it creates insecurity and questions the legitimacy of institutions.
Q: Can we talk about the experience of the citizens who are affected?
A: Absolutely. Citizens who have acquired citizenship through investment live in constant uncertainty. They do not know whether an administrative decision or a foreign arrest warrant can deprive them of citizenship. This fear creates second-class citizens, segregation in society and distrust of institutions.
In contrast, natural-born citizens do not face this threat. This inequality undermines the concept of common citizenship as a bond of life and right.
Q: What are the consequences for the economy and investments?
A: Arbitrary deprivation of citizenship undermines investor confidence. Investors need predictability and legal certainty. If the Republic of Cyprus is perceived to be able to deprive citizenship without trial, its attractiveness as an investment destination is reduced. The economic damage can be long-term, as businesses and investors avoid countries with arbitrary procedures.
Furthermore, the country’s international image is suffering, resulting in reduced trust in institutions and financial tools, such as banking systems and corporate investments.
Q: What are the main axes for reform?
A: There are five main axes:
-
Judicial oversight: Any decision to naturalise or revoke citizenship must be approved by a judge or by an independent, legally constituted and credible body, which ensures full respect for procedural guarantees, as well as the substantive obligation to a fair trial and the right to be heard.
-
Objective criteria: The procedure must be based on clear and verifiable criteria (e.g. criminal record, real and continuous connection with the country, financial transparency), with verifiable evidence and full justification. The mere mention that the person is “wanted by Interpol” is not sufficient in itself for revocation; specific documentation of the essential facts and their connection with the legitimate grounds for revocation is required. By analogy with Article 38(3)(c) of Law 188(I)/2007 (Prevention and Suppression of Money Laundering), where enforcement of a foreign order can be denied if it contradicts the interests of justice or violates natural justice, the same principle of procedural fairness must also govern the revocation of citizenship: full disclosure of reasons, right to be heard, access to the file, and effective legal remedy.
-
Transparency: Decisions should be made public, explained and subject to appeal.
-
Accountability: Those who participated in violations of the Constitution or international standards should be held accountable and subject to sanctions.
-
International cooperation: The Republic of Cyprus should follow international standards, such as the ECHR, and cooperate with independent authorities to evaluate naturalisation decisions.