Based on publicly available evidence, the Anti-Corruption Authority identified indications of possible abuse of power and other offences and forwarded the material to the Attorney General, clarifying that its conclusions are based on the “balance of probabilities” rather than the criminal standard of proof. All those involved retain the presumption of innocence.
The report of the Anti-Corruption Authority on Mafia State, led by Australian legal expert Gabrielle McIntyre, is not just another institutional document that will be filed away and left to await its fate. It is, or it can become, a historic turning point for the Republic of Cyprus. Not because it proves criminal offences on its own. That is the work of the Police, the Legal Service and ultimately the courts. It is significant because it opens, perhaps for the first time with such institutional density, the question Cyprus has avoided for decades: can power truly be held accountable when suspicions reach the top? Will it emerge as an opportunity for Cyprus to move from a state of impunity to a state governed by the rule of law?
The fate of a president
The answer to this question will determine far more than the fate of a former president or a group of well-known individuals. It will determine whether the Republic of Cyprus is willing to look itself in the eye. Whether it can prove that institutions do not operate selectively. That the law is not strict only for the weak and flexible for the powerful. That political and judicial power, business connections, state decisions and mechanisms of influence cannot form an opaque system of mutual protection.
In other countries, criminal accountability of former or even serving leaders is not institutionally unthinkable. In most cases, proceedings were initiated after leaving office, after removal or resignation, or when immunity linked to the office no longer applied. French President Jacques Chirac was convicted in 2011 for misuse of public funds in a case involving fictitious jobs at the Paris municipality. He received a suspended two-year sentence. Another French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, was convicted in 2025 to five years in prison for criminal conspiracy in a case involving financing of his election campaign by Libya. Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi was convicted for tax fraud, false accounting and embezzlement in a case linked to the Mediaset group. South Korean President Lee Myung-bak was convicted for corruption, embezzlement and bribery, receiving a 17-year sentence.
In Cyprus, the Anti-Corruption Authority has not convicted anyone. This must be stated clearly. The report is not a court ruling. It is not a conviction. It is based on the “balance of probabilities,” that is, a level of assessment different from the strict criminal standard of proof “beyond reasonable doubt.” Precisely for this reason, the next stage is crucial. The value of the report will not be judged only by what it says. It will be judged by what the Republic does with it.
Faith in the rules
Here lies the great opportunity. Cyprus has become accustomed to scandals that erupt, shake things up for a few days, generate political statements, televised confrontations and mutual accusations, and then fade away. From the stock exchange to naturalisations, from banking responsibilities to cases of entanglement, the collective feeling is often the same. Everyone knows, few pay, the system continues. This feeling is the most corrosive element for a democracy. It does not only destroy trust in politicians. It destroys the citizen’s belief that it is worth respecting the rules.
If the report is investigated adequately, independently and credibly, it can function as a reset point. Not as an act of revenge. Not as a political vendetta. Not as public lynching. But as institutional maturation. The difference between a state of corruption and a state governed by the rule of law is not that the latter has no corrupt individuals. It is that the latter has mechanisms that can go all the way, even when those being investigated are powerful, well-known, well-connected or politically protected.
This means specific things. It means that investigative authorities must act without fear and without political instructions. It means that the Legal Service must convince society that it will evaluate the material based solely on legal criteria. It means that any potential conflict of interest must be addressed with absolute transparency. It means that those who handle the case must be, and must appear, independent. It also means that those involved have the right to full defence, dignified treatment and due process. The rule of law is not built by violating rights. It is built precisely by protecting them, even in the most sensitive cases.
Political stakes
The stakes are not only criminal. They are deeply political, in the sense of the quality of democracy. If the case is buried, unjustifiably delayed or turned into a technical exercise without real outcome, the message will be devastating. That even when an independent institution invests years of work, examines testimonies, evaluates data and reaches serious indications, the system always finds a way to absorb shocks and survive intact. If, however, the case is investigated to the end, the message will be equally strong in the opposite direction, that no one is above scrutiny.
Cyprus needs this message. It needs it for the citizens who are tired of hearing about accountability without seeing it. It needs it for young people who grow up believing success depends on connections rather than merit. It needs it for public administration, where honest officials must feel protected when they resist pressure. It also needs it for the country’s international image, which has been damaged by cases that portrayed the Republic as vulnerable to networks of money, influence and favours.
This case can become the mirror of a country that changes or the proof of a country unwilling to change. It is not enough to say that Cyprus is a European state governed by the rule of law. It must behave as such, especially when the test is difficult. And the test is difficult precisely because it concerns the top of the political system, well-known individuals, powerful trajectories and a web of relationships that, based on the picture described, cannot be treated as an isolated incident.
The starting point
Real reform begins when society stops considering the abnormal as normal. When it no longer accepts as “how the system works” favours, influence, immunity, exchange of benefits and access to corridors of power. The Authority’s report can become the starting point for such a change, if it is followed by real investigation, institutional seriousness and political resilience.
It is not certain that Cyprus will seize this opportunity. On the other hand, it is certain that it has rarely been presented so clearly. The question now is not only what the former president and those named did or did not do. The deeper question is what the state will do now. Will it protect those in power or will it protect democracy? The answer will determine whether the McIntyre report will remain as just another chapter in the history of impunity or as the beginning of a new era in which Cyprus can finally say that power is accountable.
