Opinion

After many decades of observing the high-handed way many state officials behave in Cyprus - as if they are above the law and free to abuse their power - it is refreshing that President Anastasiades decided to show up in court like any other responsible citizen and testify in former deputy attorney-general Rikkos Erotokritou’s defence.

The defendant is entitled to a defence and is considered innocent until proven guilty, so the president wasn’t interfering with due process but cooperating with it. He was not acting as a lawyer in the case, but as a witness, so why not? Should he just sit in the Presidential Palace, avoid responsibility, and swan around in a bubble like Christofias did, passive aggressively ineffective to the very end of his term?

It’s now up to the prosecutor’s office to prove their case with evidence, of which there is plenty, according to the earlier independent criminal investigation by Panayiotis Kallis.

The president testified that there was bad blood between Attorney-General Costas Clerides and Erotokritou, and this was more than evident in the public war of words between the two men. Just how relevant this information is to the allegations that Erotokritou abused his position by using the state’s resources to prosecute several of the owners of Providencia represented by Neocleous’ law firm in a succession war remains to be seen. One wonders why the state Legal Services would even be involved in a private business’ legal case, what’s the public interest angle there?

The other question is Erotokritou’s own interests; a company loan allegedly served by a backroom deal with the law firm to settle a Laiki Bank court case in which he was directly involved.

These accusations are the main reason Erotokritou and Neocleous law firm are in court in the first place, and if anything, it makes the Legal Services look more neutral in its pursuit of justice that the president testified as a defence witness. In addition, the fact that the two men separated their duties to avoid talking to each other makes Erotokritou’s decisions more-or-less his sole responsibility.

How likely is it that the above serious criminal allegations can be put down to a vendetta between Clerides and Erotokritou? It all depends on the strength of the evidence, that’s what counts in the end, after all.

It’s also interesting to remember that despite their personal differences, Erotokritou was not originally called out by Clerides, but by the ex-Central Bank board member Stelios Kiliaris, who complained about him abusing his power…to the House of Representatives. The criminal investigation launched by Clerides was in the wake of this whistleblower’s testimony, not because of the vendetta. Indeed, the institution of the Legal Services has suffered a very serious blow to its credibility because of the scandal. How likely is it that any of this would have come to the surface were it not for Kiliaris? Very unlikely. The Legal Services or any other state institution would naturally be entirely uninterested in deliberately hunting for corruption in its own back yard.

Actually, it brings up the point that fail-safe mechanisms to avoid conflicts of interest in the Legal Services should be set up as part of the lesson learned from this situation. The primary objective should be to protect the neutrality and independence of the justice system.

Accountability

The political parties who objected to the president testifying must no doubt be concerned about their own accountability in the future. And make no mistake, the accountability that state officials have avoided in the past is now firmly on the near-term horizon. The biggest political parties have finally published their assets, showing that they do own millions - the most is owned by AKEL at 10.8 million Euros. Looks like capitalism ain’t so bad, hey boys?

Two MPs were not re-elected because of their irresponsible behaviour; speeder Themistocleous and apologist for wild bird trapping Hamboulas, so it should be noted by all politicians that people really have had it up to the eyebrows with abuse of power.

It should be remembered that current presidents enjoy immunity from prosecution, not from refusing to participate in the legal process at all. Most people believe that former president Christofias should have been removed from his position because he refused to take responsibility for his actions, so when a president comes along who’s willing to go the extra mile to prove that he’s not above the law, why on earth not appreciate it for what it is - a good example?