From Friday morning until late that same afternoon, when lawyer Christos Mylonopoulos withdrew from the team of independent criminal investigators appointed by the Council of Ministers to examine the Anti-Corruption Authority's findings concerning the book Mafia State, three close associates of President Nikos Christodoulides, the government spokesperson, the deputy government spokesperson and the President's press office director, collectively elevated what had already been perceived as amateur handling of the matter to another level.
For hours, they attempted to convince the public that:
- President Christodoulides knew that Mylonopoulos had served as legal counsel for Michalis Zolotas in the Focus case.
- The matter had been disclosed by Mylonopoulos himself to the head of the investigative team, Vassilios Skouris.
- Skouris intended to exclude Mylonopoulos from the Focus aspect of the investigation, despite the fact that it constitutes one of the report's most significant sections.
- It was Skouris who proposed collaborating with Mylonopoulos on the broader investigation and who, after being informed of the circumstances, judged that he could still be included on the investigative team.
- Mylonopoulos was not a lawyer for Focus itself but rather for Zolotas, and that the original intention had been for him to be excluded only from the Focus chapter.
- The various chapters of the report are separate and would be examined separately, though they failed to acknowledge that all of them form part of the broader Mafia State case.
- There was no conflict-of-interest issue and that "all necessary safeguards had been taken to ensure the impartiality of the process."
Public discomfort grows
The public listened for hours to what many viewed as implausible arguments from presidential aides before Mylonopoulos himself decided to step away from the case amid growing public scrutiny following revelations that he had recently represented defendant Michalis Zolotas.
The obvious question is how such a situation was allowed to develop into what increasingly appeared to be a fiasco.
In short, Mylonopoulos's withdrawal became inevitable given the amateur handling of the matter by the Council of Ministers and, in particular, by the President. Yet the damage extended beyond his departure. The government's actions created doubts that now risk undermining the credibility of the entire investigative process.
The appointment of the five-member team of criminal investigators had originally been presented as an initiative designed to strengthen public confidence in institutions. Instead of dispelling concerns, however, the handling of the affair generated new and even more serious questions about the credibility of the process.
The government itself confirmed that it knew before the appointment that Mylonopoulos had previously represented Michalis Zolotas in the Focus case. Despite this, it proceeded with the appointment, arguing that he would recuse himself from that particular aspect of the investigation.
The key institutional question
This gives rise to a major institutional question.
If the government knew from the outset that there was an issue requiring recusal, why proceed with the appointment at all?
Why was another legal expert not selected from the beginning, someone with no prior involvement and no potential conflict of interest?
Recusal could not solve a problem that was obviously capable of undermining public confidence in such a serious investigative team.
The handling of the matter was, or one hopes was, deeply amateurish because the Focus case is not a secondary reference within the report. On the contrary, according to the Anti-Corruption Authority's findings, it represents one of its most significant sections and includes allegations of potentially serious criminal offences requiring a full, independent and credible investigation.
Even if Mylonopoulos had not participated directly in examining the Focus chapter, he would still have remained a member of the team, had access to the broader evidence and participated in the collective assessment of the overall case.
The issue, therefore, is not his personal integrity or professional competence.
It concerns the objective appearance of impartiality that such a critical criminal process must project.
In justice, it is not enough simply to be impartial. Equally important is ensuring that there is not even the slightest reasonable doubt that impartiality may be compromised.
A fundamentally political issue
There is also a broader political issue surrounding the handling of the Mafia State findings.
That issue concerns one person above all others: the head of the executive branch.
Nikos Christodoulides served for years as a minister and one of former president Nicos Anastasiades's closest associates.
The Anti-Corruption Authority's report includes findings and recommendations for investigation involving people and decisions from that period.
Under those circumstances, it is legitimate to ask whether Christodoulides can credibly present himself as the political guarantor of a process that may ultimately examine the governmental environment in which he served.
The issue is not whether the former president bears personal criminal responsibility.
That is a matter solely for the courts.
The issue is one of political and institutional legitimacy.
When entrusted with organising a process that concerns a period of your own political activity, even as a member of previous governments, the obligation extends beyond merely acting lawfully.
The obligation is to ensure that nobody can reasonably question the independence of the process.
Such independence can only be accepted when it is clear that every necessary safeguard has been put in place by the executive branch.
A test of credibility
Trust is not built through assurances.
It is built through decisions that eliminate every reasonable doubt from the outset.
The Republic of Cyprus is now facing a significant test of credibility.
If the investigation concludes in a manner that leaves even the slightest shadow over the process, regardless of its findings, a large section of society will continue to question its legitimacy.
And when citizens stop believing that institutions are capable of investigating political power independently, it is not only the rule of law that comes under strain.
It is the rule of law itself that is fundamentally undermined.
