The Supreme Constitutional Court was “unanimous” in its decision over whether or not Auditor-General Odysseas Michaelides will be fired, it was heard in court on Wednesday.

Proceedings in Nicosia began at around 9.30am, with the court reading out its 209-page decision over Michaelides’ future.Chief justice Antonis Liatsos began by referring to the positions of both Michaelides and Attorney-General George Savvides, who filed the case to have Michaelides relieved of his duties.

He then said that what would be judged was Michaelides’ “reaction to a series of issues”, and not the powers at his discretion.

Then, judge Tevkros Economou began to read the decision in full, describing various instances wherein it had been alleged Michaelides had overstepped his responsibilities.

He said the court had rejected Michaelides’ position that his disagreements with Savvides were “merely a disagreement”, saying they instead constituted “a lack of respect for the institution of the attorney-general”.

THE COURT’S DECISION IN FULL

“The auditor-general is not under scrutiny for handing over complaints since that was [his] legal authority, he is under scrutiny for his response in which he brutally violated the presumption of innocence of [Assistant Attorney-General Savvas Angelides],” Economou said

He added, “his conduct should have operated with self-restraint, and he should have displayed irreproachable conduct towards other government officials.”

He then went on to say that “we regret to note that the [Michaelides] did not limit himself to the role of the whistleblower to the independent anti-corruption authority, but reserved for himself the role of a judge after proceeding to draw conclusions on his statements and submissions. These show a lack of self-restraint and judgment.”

Additionally, he referred to “obscene content” which occurred on a social media page dedicated to supporting Michaelides, saying that although the page did not belong to Michaelides, “it bore his name and photograph”.

He then added that “we would have expected a government official to immediately intervene with the support page to stop the profanity posted on it.”

He then briefly touched on the matter of multiple pensions being paid to government officials, saying “we regret that the [Michaelides’] approaches lack conviction. It is attributed to [Michaelides] that he was deliberately giving opinions, something with which we disagree.”

The decision was made by a panel of eight judges, with one having stepped down due to a conflict of interest.

The legal service filed their case for Michaelides to be relieved of his duties in April, with the case only the second of its nature to be filed in the history of the Republic of Cyprus, with the case set to have reverberations for how Cyprus’ legal service, audit office, and government is run for years to come.

The only other so far was the case of Rikkos Erotokritou, who was suspended as assistant attorney-general in 2015. Erotokritou was later sentenced to three and a half years in prison after he was found guilty of defrauding a public official, bribing public officials, and other charges.

Michaelides immediately responded with a statement, describing the case as a “retaliation” for a complaint filed by his service regarding an alleged abuse of power on the part of assistant Attorney-General Savvas Angelides in May last year.

Angelides had at the time described the complaint as “deliberate targeting”, “dangerous behaviour”, and “bad faith”.

Michaelides said in April that “the implementation of this retaliation has been underway for months and is now entering its final phase with the filing today of an application for my suspension from the position of auditor-general for alleged misconduct.

“These unsubstantiated accusations which the heads of the legal service throw at me and at the audit service at every opportunity will finally be able to be answered by independent and unbridled judges,” he said.

Earlier, Savvas Angelides had given a scathing interview to newspaper Kathimerini regarding Michaelides’ conduct.

“Any sane thinking person would demand to follow the only procedure which exists to control the behaviour of the auditor-general towards independent officials and others in the public sphere,” he said.

He said the “only option available to assess this behaviour” is to involve the judicial council in a process which, would “adjudicate an application to decide what constitutes misconduct for the purpose of dismissal.”