The Court of Appeal unanimously rejected an appeal by Renos Kyriakides, upholding a first-instance ruling that a contested publication by Haravgi newspaper linking him to Eoka B, was protected by qualified privilege and published in good faith, it said on Monday.

Kyriakides was an Eoka fighter and figure referenced in historical and political contexts linked to the turbulent period of 1955 – 59. When his name resurfaced decades later in a libel case concerning alleged links to the Eoka B organisation and the early 1970s, he strongly denied the claims.

In its decision issued on April 9, the appellate court confirmed the earlier judgment in a libel action filed by Kyriakides following a 2013 article linking him to the “inner circle of Eoka B”.

The publication in question stated, among other things, that “R.K. had close relations with the inner circle of Eoka B in Cyprus and specifically with… of whom he was, of course, a choice.” This reference formed the basis of the lawsuit, with the plaintiff arguing that the article was defamatory, false, and published without prior verification of its accuracy.

The first-instance court found that the publication was indeed defamatory. However, it ruled that it fell within the Civil Wrongs Law, which concerns instances where defamatory material is published under qualified privilege.

The court noted that while the available evidence “may not suffice for a successful plea of truth,” it nevertheless “could in no way lead to the conclusion that the defendant knew what was published was false.” It also recorded testimony from “direct sources” describing the plaintiff as a “fighter of the 1971–1974 period,” a term which, according to the evidence, referred to Eoka B.

Additionally, historical references portrayed Kyriakides as a person “associated with Eoka B,” while there was also evidence that he had been arrested as a suspect in the abduction of a then minister – an act said to have been “organised and executed by Eoka B”.

The appeal raised arguments concerning the application of the qualified privilege defence, whether the publication referred to the plaintiff, and the issue of legal costs.

The court recalled jurisprudence stating that “in cases of doubt, the balance must tilt in favour of freedom of expression.” The court found that the publication concerned a matter of public interest, as it related to alleged irregularities and possible criminal acts within an institution, and that there was a duty to inform the public.

It emphasised that the burden of proving bad faith rested with the plaintiff and that “it does not appear that he ever discharged it.” The court underlined that even where inaccuracies exist, “a margin for exaggeration, even for inaccuracy, is allowed within the framework of the defence of qualified privilege.”

The Court of Appeal concluded that the first-instance judgment was correct and that the defence of qualified privilege had been properly applied, dismissing the appeal in its entirety.