A decision by the Auditor General, following a legal opinion by the Legal Service, to reject Parliament’s request for a named list of donors to the Social Support Body has reignited debate over transparency and institutional trust. The development comes in the aftermath of video footage alleging improper links between the body and business interests, and has intensified scrutiny of the role and oversight of the executive.
Refusal to disclose donor information to Parliament
The Auditor General’s negative response to the House of Representatives’ request for a nominal list of donors, citing a legal opinion by the Legal Service, has effectively blocked parliamentary scrutiny of the Social Support Body’s funding.
The request followed the circulation of video material allegedly showing how the Social Support Body appeared to engage with business figures and investors, receiving donations in order to promote requests. Despite these allegations, the Attorney General and the Auditor General concluded that the donor details should not be disclosed, preventing an examination of whether any benefits were granted in exchange for contributions.
Legal basis and limits of parliamentary oversight
Under the legal framework cited, refusal to provide information to Parliament is permissible only when disclosure could cause harm to the Republic in matters of security or foreign affairs. No such justification has been publicly linked to the present case.
The decision has therefore raised questions about the balance between the protection of personal data of corporate entities and the constitutional role of Parliament in exercising oversight. The prioritisation of corporate anonymity over parliamentary control has been highlighted as a key point of contention.
Questions raised by the decision
The refusal has prompted a series of unresolved questions regarding institutional practice and accountability, including:
- Why a company participating in a social programme would seek anonymity, and why this position appears to be supported by the government.
- How the preference of a private company to remain anonymous can be placed above the need for transparency and accountability.
- Why political parties are legally required to disclose their donors, while the Social Support Body is not, despite its alleged links to executive actions and relations with business interests.
- What potential harm disclosure to Parliament could have caused to national security or foreign affairs, given the legal threshold for refusing parliamentary scrutiny.
Findings of the Audit Office
Significant concerns had already been raised in a report by the Audit Office regarding the operation of the Social Support Body. The report noted that donations to the Special Fund create conditions of a particular relationship, as contributing natural or legal persons often engage in transactions with the state and have interests affected by decisions of the executive.
The report cited numerous examples, without naming individuals or companies, of entities that maintained dealings with the state while simultaneously making substantial donations to a body chaired by the First Lady. It concluded that the operational model of the body creates a relationship with the executive that gives rise to reasonable suspicions of conflicts of interest.
Allegations presented in video footage
The subsequent video footage added further detail to these concerns, allegedly illustrating how business interests interacted with the Social Support Body. According to the material, Charalambos Charalambous was seen inviting investors to approach the President with proposals, while Giorgos Lakkotrypis, described as a close associate of the President by the then Director of the President’s Office, reportedly explained how donations could result in prioritisation. The footage also included statements by a major contractor describing the nature of his interactions with the government.
Position of the Attorney General
Despite these developments, the Attorney General concluded that there was no legal basis for the disclosure of donor information. As a result, the origin of donations to a body that reportedly raised €6.4 million in 2023, the year when Filippa Karsera assumed its leadership, remains confidential.
This position effectively suspends parliamentary scrutiny and maintains the confidentiality of the body’s funding sources.
Role of the House of Representatives
Attention now turns to the House of Representatives and its constitutional powers. Parliament retains the authority to insist on disclosure, placing responsibility on the President to determine whether to pursue a formal referral and to assume the accompanying political responsibility.
Following accountability, the argument advanced is that the Social Support Body should be closed and its role transferred to other state institutions, on the basis that its current mode of operation creates more problems than it resolves.
Broader implications for institutional trust
Over time, the perception has strengthened of an executive that does not consider itself obliged to account to oversight mechanisms. Transparency is increasingly portrayed as a burden rather than a democratic requirement.
At the same time, institutional responses appear to reinforce this approach. The legal opinion in question is presented as extending beyond issues of administrative practice, touching upon the functioning of democracy itself. An unchecked executive is described as inherently risky, while institutions that fail to recognise their responsibility are seen as contributing to a deeper democratic crisis.
Source: Politis Sunday edition