Our View: Do we really need British lawyers to tell us something we already know?

After months of inactivity, the Authority Against Corruption is set to start work. It may have received many complaints, but they do not appear to have been examined or had anything done about them, even though in theory the authority has been in existence since last year. Is this because it does not have a clear brief or does not have the personnel to carry out any work?

Something seems to be happening at last. Two British lawyers were expected in Cyprus to be given a briefing about investigating the allegations made by the auditor-general against the deputy attorney-general. Odysseas Michaelides’ allegations of corruption against Savvas Angelides, although made very recently, will be given priority by the authority for unknown reasons. Dozens of other complaints will have to wait.

Apart from Michaelides’ allegations the British lawyers will also investigate possible conflict of interest, with regard to the links of five law offices involved in arranging golden passports with the former president and his ministers. There is also a report about the issuing of a golden passport to a Russian oligarch, who owns a building in Limassol that was built by company in which a close relative of the former president was involved.

Is there really a need for an investigation by foreign lawyers to establish that there was conflict of interest with regard to the golden passports. The citizenship-by-investment scheme was a state policy from which the family of the head of state benefited financially. These are the facts. What more do we expect to find out from yet another investigation when everybody refuses to acknowledge what has been glaringly obvious for years?

So far, there have been three investigations into the golden passports. One by the former president of CySec, Demetra Kalogirou, one by the former president of the supreme court Myron Nikolatos, and another by the auditor-general. If all these failed to expose any corruption, which would justify bringing criminal charges against someone, what would another investigation achieve?

And what will happen if the British lawyers find that Michaelides’ allegations against Angelides were correct? Would the attorney-general’s office initiate legal proceedings against the deputy attorney or would the matter be closed? The thinking of the authorities, we suspect, is that they would deal with such problems when they arise, having thought nothing through. After all, the establishment of the authority was the result of public pressure on the former president to do something about corruption.

And he decided to set up the authority against corruption. It will now be up to the authority to prove that it was not set up just for Nicos Anastasiades to be seen to be doing something about corruption before he left office.