After an investigation that lasted longer than two years, carried out by four lawyers, the anti-corruption authority on Tuesday released a 67-page report on the findings. According to the report, there was possibility for criminal investigations of 15 individuals and legal entities, even though the main subject of the investigation was the former president Nicos Anastasiades.

The initial demand for an investigation of the allegations in the Makarios Drousiotis book Mafia State was submitted to the anti-corruption authority by Andreas Mavroyiannis, who was a presidential candidate at the time, in November 2022. Anastasiades, who was president, made a similar request to the authority a few weeks later, claiming he wanted to put the record straight.

The authority appointed an Australian lawyer, with expertise in international criminal law, in charge of the investigation in which three local lawyers also participated. It was eventually completed earlier this year and on Tuesday a summary of the 3,000-page report was made public sparking a host of reactions. Political parties and an array of lawyers gave their views about the findings of the investigation, the consensus being that there should be a criminal investigation of all possible criminal offences listed in the report.

Anastasiades was the only person who read the report differently, saying in a statement that all allegations of enrichment and corruption by Drousiotis had been refuted while all the offense attributed to him had be categorically rejected. He also demanded an investigation but wanted the attorney-general and the deputy attorney-general, both of whom he had appointed, recused. Funnily enough, Drousiotis’ attorney went a step further, seeking the removal of the two from their posts, because if they remained they could influence an investigation.

Giorgos Savvides and Savvas Angelides are in a rather difficult position. Not only were they appointed by Anastasiades, they also served as ministers in his government, while Savvides has made no secret of his close friendship with the ex-president. Could he lead an investigation? If Savvides decided against a criminal investigation he would be accused of protecting Anastasiades and if he ordered an investigation, there would be claims he would protect his friend. It is a no-win situation for the AG. Needless to say that before any decision is taken, the AG’s office would have to go through all the evidence, and it would take months to examine if there is a case.

We will have to wait and see what the AG will decide to do. Irrespective of his decision, the anti-corruption authority’s report was another blow to Anastasiades’ flagging reputation and social standing. This is also a form of punishment for the former president, despite what he is saying.