Attorney-general George Savvides on Thursday announced that he has elected not to prosecuted former auditor-general Odysseas Michaelides for alleged contempt of court on his part in light of his dismissal.

In a 1,000-word statement explaining his decision, he said he had been presented with “sufficient evidence” to be able to go ahead and prosecute Michaelides, who was removed from office last year by a unanimous Supreme Constitutional Court ruling, but that he had instead chosen to give him a “second chance”.

He explained that the reason for the police’s investigation into Michaelides was comments he had made on a television show in May alleging that a close associate of President Nikos Christodoulides knew in advance of last year’s ruling that he was going to be relieved of his duties.

On the same day, Michaelides had written on social media that “President Christodoulides is hiding, but was part of the process”, and that “a close aide knew from July 2024, before final arguments, that the Supreme Constitutional Court’s decision would be unanimous”.

In light of these comments, Savvides said on Thursday, “in the context of the state’s obligation to ensure, on the one hand, the integrity and independence of institutions and, on the other hand, freedom of expression, provided that it is based on true and documented facts, the police called on Michaelides to testify”.

He added that the police had asked Michaelides to “hand over any evidence he may have so as to facilitate investigations into the serious allegations he had made publicly”.

“However, further investigation in this direction was not possible, as his allegations remained in limbo, since they were not accompanied by any evidence capable of substantiating them,” he said.

As such, he added, given that there was an “absence of any evidence to support Michaelides’ allegations”, it was “inevitable” that he would be investigated for contempt of court.

“Upon the completion of the investigation of the case, the legal service conducted a thorough evaluation of the material obtained … to determine whether the constituent elements of the offence [of contempt of court], including the ‘scandalous nature’ of the act, were met,” he explained.

Following this evaluation, he said, “our evaluation concluded that there is sufficient evidence” that the “constituent elements of the offence” were committed, “as specific unsubstantiated statements and postings directly question the impartiality and independence of the judges of the Supreme Constitutional Court”.

He added that Michaelides’ statements “contain serious insinuations about a lack of independence, impartiality and legality on the part of the judicial process and judges”, and that “in particular, his claim that the outcome of the decision regarding his dismissal was known in advance constitutes a clear challenge to the impartiality and independence” of the court.

“Furthermore, Michaelides’ reference to a state official who allegedly belongs to the close circle of the president makes his statements even more incriminating, as it creates the impression of the involvement of [Supreme Court judges] … in an alleged political entanglement,” he said.

He added that this reference also constituted an insinuation that there had been “a diversion from the administration of impartial justice with a ‘staged’ trial which had a predetermined outcome”.

“Michaelides, with his attitude, demonstrated a lack of respect for the institutional position he held and the prestige of the state he served. As a person with such a position, he had an increased obligation to position himself with responsibility,” he said.

“His choice, instead, to formulate unsubstantiated and offensive allegations against the justice system constitutes not only a direct insult aimed at the institutions but also a complete inconsistency with the institutional capacity he held and the increased responsibility it imposed.”

However, he said, “regardless of our position that there is sufficient evidence for prosecution, we proceeded to consider whether it is appropriate in the circumstances” to go ahead and prosecute Michaelides, adding that he had “considered all relevant factors as well as the circumstances surrounding this case”.

To this end, he said Michaelides’ statements “have already received widespread public disapproval”, and that “in his subsequent public statements … [he] publicly attempted to refute what he had previously stated”.

“From these statements, we consider that Michaelides, apparently recognising the reprehensibility of his previous allegations, attempted to explain publicly that his statements were not directed against the court,” he said.

With this in mind, he said that “taking into account his subsequent statements and his own attempt to refute what was said previously, as well as the risk, in this specific case, of aggravating the public climate by shifting public debate away from the essence of the case … we decided not to pursue criminal prosecution”.

He added that the decision “constitutes a second chance provided to Michaelides”, but that this second chance is “accompanied … by an explicit warning that any repetition of similar reprehensible behaviour or restatement of the same unsubstantiated and insulting allegations against the justice system will not be tolerated”.

“Freedom of expression is absolutely respected and constitutes a fundamental constitutional right, but under no circumstances can it lead to behaviours which exceed limits and end up harming the prestige and credibility of justice, which it is our duty to protect,” he said.

Michaelides was appointed as auditor-general by then president Nicos Anastasiades as auditor-general in 2014, and was relieved of his duties by the Supreme Constitutional in September last year, with an eight-judge panel unanimously ruling that he had conducted himself inappropriately, and that he was thus unfit to carry out the office’s duties.

The court’s verdict was 209 pages long and scathing, with Michaelides having been found to have repeatedly sought to undermine attorney-general George Savvides’ legal opinions, often writing his own interpretations which contradicted those of Savvides.

It was written in the decision that 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.”

Additionally, the court 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.”

Michaelides himself had said the decision “essentially abolishes the audit service and democracy”, adding that it “puts a corset, a gag, on the audit office.”

“It is a black day for Cyprus and a black day for our service,” he said.

Savvides had in turn warned those decrying the decision to read it before passing judgement.

“A court order has been issued and I just want to emphasise that it is important to support the [Republic’s] institutions, and to show the required respect to the Supreme Constitutional Court. Woe betide us if we lose faith in the courts,” he said.

Earlier this year, he opened an office with a view of the presidential palace in Nicosia seen by some as a move symbolic of his future political ambitions.

He has since launched a new political party, named ‘Alma’ – Greek for ‘leap’.