Answers for every accusation levelled at him in the anti-corruption authority’s Mafia State report were offered by former president Nicos Anastasiades on Tuesday, in an hour-long address.

Regarding the allegations related to an alleged abuse of power in relation to the payments made between a company named Focus Maritime and another named Rizokarpasso Shipping, he protested that a previous investigation into the matter had found that he had committed no criminal wrongdoing.

The funds had been used to cover the costs of airline tickets to bring people to Cyprus to vote for Disy’s candidate Ioannis Kasoulides at the 2008 presidential election.

Anastasiades pointed out that in 2014, then attorney-general Costas Clerides had ordered an investigation and found that “the evidence did not lead to the commission of any criminal offences”, as “undeclared funding to political parties, during the time under examination, was not a criminal offence”.

On the question of alleged abuse of power and the accusation that he had unduly influenced Clerides’ decision, he said that the anti-corruption authority had previously found that “he did not receive a single cent” from financial contributions to Disy while he was party leader.

Given this to be the case, he said, “what was the benefit of Anastasiades, which is a prerequisite for establishing that a crime was committed?”.

“Why would he request the termination of a criminal investigation? Perhaps to prevent incriminating evidence being found for a criminal offence which was never committed?” he asked.

He also suggested that had he attempted to unduly influence Clerides’ investigation into the matter at the time, Clerides, “who did not have the best relations with the former president”, would have “denounced those allegedly unfair interventions” at the time.

On the question of allegations that he received €250,000 from the now defunct Laiki Bank as support for his election campaign in the 2013 presidential elections, he said that the matter was never raised during his appearances for questioning by the anti-corruption authority.

“I find it inconceivable that an authority would reach findings which publicly defame individuals without first requesting their positions before reaching any conclusions,” he said.

He added that the authority did not clarify “what exactly … the presidential candidate exchanged for the payment he allegedly received from the Laiki Bank”.

Next, he spoke about allegations that he had “exerted institutional pressure to direct” Mokas, the police anti-money laundering unit, to “investigate the private company which bears his name and in which his two daughters were shareholders, seeking to ensure public exoneration and protection from independent, strict scrutiny”.

He argued that requesting that he be investigated cannot be considered an offence, asking, “did Anastasiades commit the crime of abuse of power because he requested the current investigation undertaken by the anti-corruption authority?”.

“I consider it completely absurd and unlawful for it to be considered an abuse of power to request that publications which attribute acts of corruption against him to be investigated,” he added.

He also asked why Clerides was not also accused of abusing his power and dereliction of duty given that he accepted the outcome of Mokas’ investigation.

Regarding allegations of influence peddling in relation to the naturalisation of Russian oligarch Alexander Abramov, the founder and then chairman of steel manufacturing and mining company Evraz, and Leonid Lebedev, a then sitting member of Russia’s federation council – the upper chamber of its legislature, he accused the anti-corruption authority of “arriving at the most arbitrary and illogical findings”.

“Unfortunately, for the umpteenth time, I must mention that even in this investigation, I was not questioned”, he said, before pointing out that the entire affair took place when Demetris Christofias, not he, was president.

“Is it possible to make the claim that a member of parliament and leader of an opposition party requested a meeting with a minister and, by exerting his influence, dictated him to proceed with the illegal naturalisation of investors?” he asked.

He then asked, “is it possible to seriously adopt the claim that a cabinet decision … is due to influence peddling or the exerting of institutional pressure on the part of the leader of an opposition party?”

“Since when, and in which country in all the world, is executive power wielded by the opposition and not the duly elected government?” he asked.

He spoke briefly of the allegation of undue abuse of power with relation to the development of Turkish Cypriot-owned property in the Larnaca village of Dromolaxia, after he mediated in a meeting involving Christofias’ government, a Turkish vakif – an inalienable charitable endowment – and the company which wished to develop the land.

“I wonder if it is worth commenting on what is being levelled at me,” he said, before adding that in this instance, too, the anti-corruption authority did not ask him any questions.

Drawing his defence to a conclusion, he said that “if we want to have the rule of law, and to protect it and take action against those who undermine it with fabrications, such as those written in Mafia State or elsewhere, such as in the ‘Sandy’ case, the time has come”.

“What do we want here? The rule of law or the rule of the internet?”, he asked.

He stressed that he does not wish to “attribute bad faith” to the anti-corruption authority, but said that “I do accuse them of lacking the required strong will to resist populism, the prevailing atmosphere created by courts of public opinions, character assassins, and malicious people on the internet.

“What I demand is the immediate appointment of an independent criminal investigator and prosecutor, with a strong personality and recognised prestige, who will complete their work within a reasonable timeframe so that the real truth can shine through as soon as possible,” he said.

He then closed his speech by quipping, “I hope that what I am asking for will not land me on the end of another accusation of exerting undue pressure or abusing my power”.