The controversy surrounding the independent social support body will not go away for as long as the government pretends not to understand what the issue is. The matter was discussed at two different House committee meetings in the last few days, but the government stuck to its indefensible position that there was full transparency in the administration and operation of the fund.

The wife of the president and chairperson of this independent body, Philippa Christodoulidou Karsera, insisted in the post announcing her resignation, two weeks ago, just three days after the release of the infamous video, that there was ‘absolute transparency’ in the way it was run. This has been repeated ad nauseam by members of the government who appear to have a very different understanding of the meaning of ‘transparency’ than the rest of the population.

The independent social support body, that provides financial assistance to needy university students, does not divulge the names of the donors nor the amount of money they have contributed to the fund. How this can be defined as ‘absolute transparency’ by the former chairwoman (who is still listed as the chairwoman on the body’s website, two weeks after she stepped down) in mind-boggling. Is this because the logos of some of the contributors – 50 per cent, it was said – are listed on the website? This is very limited transparency, certainly not absolute.

Perhaps the law governing the body, has a provision guaranteeing the non-disclosure of the identity of donors that makes non-disclosure lawful it does not mean there is transparency. At committee meetings at the legislature last year, Christodoulides-Karsera argued against the publicising of the names of donors, on the grounds that this would discourage companies making contributions to her fund. What was astonishing was that this approach was not considered suspicious. It was perfectly reasonable to suspect that secrecy was necessary, because contributors could enjoy favourable treatment by the government, especially those that had dealings with the state.

The video that was posted on ‘X’, more than a fortnight ago, suggested that this was not outside the realm of possibility. Associates of the president openly told the sham investors that they could gain access to the government by contributing to the social support fund. On Thursday at the House, the auditor-general, mentioned that case of a company which “had transactions with the state,” donating €395,000 in 2023 and €300,000 in 2024. Is there any way that this does not raise concerns of conflict of interest? A conflict of interest which is covered up by the law preventing disclosure. Could this be described as ‘absolute transparency’?

In a letter she sent to the House committee, Christdoulides Karsera said she was not opposed “to the publication of all the donors’ data.” What are we waiting for? There is no other way for the government to close this matter.