Nicosia's Criminal Court will deliver its verdict on 17 February 2026 in the high-profile case stemming from the Al Jazeera investigation into Cyprus’ controversial naturalisation scheme, involving former House President Demetris Syllouris and former MP and businessman Christakis Giovanis.
The case is based on the findings of the investigative committee chaired by Myronas Nikolaou and concerns allegations of corruption and abuse of power. The Prosecution maintains that both defendants used their positions and influence to interfere with the naturalisation process of investors, which, in the cases under examination, allegedly took place on an exceptional basis or through irregular procedures.
According to the indictment, the defendants face charges including conspiracy to defraud the Republic, influencing a public official, and unlawful interference in naturalisation procedures.
Prosecution responds to defence submissions
During Thursday’s hearing, the Prosecution, represented by Charis Karaolidou, responded to arguments raised by defence lawyers Christos Triantafyllides and Giorgos Papaioannou, who had alleged abuse of process and violations of the right to a fair trial.
Karaolidou spoke of a “distortion of facts” and rejected claims of an unfair trial, directly addressing submissions made by Papaioannou, counsel for Giovanis. She categorically dismissed allegations of a breach of the right to a fair trial, arguing that the defence was attempting to conflate separate issues in order to construct a narrative of injustice against the accused.
The issue of Andreas Pittadjis
A central point of Karaolidou’s address concerned the Prosecution’s decision not to summon Andreas Pittadjis as a witness. Papaioannou had argued that Pittadjis was a crucial witness whose absence resulted in unfairness during the proceedings.
The Prosecution countered that this argument was internally contradictory, noting that the same individual was alternately presented by the defence as both a key witness and a central protagonist in the case. According to Karaolidou, invoking both roles simultaneously undermines the logical coherence of the defence’s position.
She further questioned whether there were, in fact, substantive gaps in the Prosecution’s case, observing that if such gaps existed, they would not require extensive legal argument to be identified.
Rejection of the 'traffic accident' analogy
Karaolidou also addressed an analogy used by the defence for Giovanis, likening the case to a traffic accident in which a passenger appears in court instead of the driver. The Prosecution described the analogy as misleading, arguing that the person portrayed as a “passenger” was neither passive nor without responsibility.
On the contrary, the Prosecution argued, the individual in question was making decisions, issuing instructions and determining the direction of actions, effectively exercising control over the situation. Any attempt to portray the accused as a mere executor or “passenger”, Karaolidou said, was unsupported both legally and logically.
Claims of deliberate confusion
The Prosecution further argued that the defence strategy sought to create confusion regarding the factual background of the case rather than to expose genuine violations of the right to a fair trial, adding that certain arguments “border on the absurd”.
It also rejected claims made by Triantafyllides, counsel for Syllouris, that Deputy Attorney General Savvas Angelides should be excluded from handling the case due to his prior participation in the Council of Ministers.
Karaolidou noted that at the relevant time, Angelides served as Minister of Defence and participated in decisions on naturalisations solely on the basis of information submitted to the Council by the competent authorities. She stressed that the data presented to the Council at the time differed significantly from information that emerged later in the investigation.
According to the Prosecution, crucial facts had not been placed before the Council of Ministers, including the non-payment of the required consideration, details regarding the true cost of the investments, as well as a series of actions and communications by Syllouris with state officials.
Karaolidou also rejected the argument that by deeming the naturalisations lawful, the Republic retrospectively legitimised any alleged illegal conduct by the defendants. She stated that the Council of Ministers had taken its decisions based on incomplete information, with the full factual background becoming known only at a later stage.
Independence of the Attorney General
Special reference was made to claims of a lack of objective impartiality on the part of the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General. The Prosecution referred to a Supreme Court ruling which found that an attempt by the House of Representatives to exclude them from handling findings related to the naturalisation programme violated their constitutionally enshrined powers and undermined the independence of the institution.
As stressed before the Court, the Attorney General of the Republic is an independent official with exclusive authority to institute, conduct and discontinue criminal proceedings, pursuant to Articles 112 to 114 of the Constitution. This authority is exercised without parliamentary or judicial oversight, save for explicit constitutional exceptions, and solely in the public interest.
Karaolidou concluded that the defence claims were unfounded and that no issue of conflict of interest or lack of impartiality arises in the handling of the case.
Allegations of 'targeted distortion' by the defence
The Prosecution also categorically rejected arguments advanced by Triantafyllides, stating that “none of the positions put forward correspond to the actual facts of the case”. It maintained that there was no issue of an unfair trial, discriminatory treatment of the defendants, or abusive exercise of prosecutorial power at any stage of the proceedings.
Karaolidou argued that the defence’s legal claims were not grounded in the evidence presented during the trial, referring to a “clear and targeted distortion” of the evidentiary material before the Court. She added that the manner in which the defence had presented the case in recent days sought to alter the true picture of events.
Cabinet's role and Syllouris’ actions
Particular reference was made to the operation of the Council of Ministers within the naturalisation programme. The Prosecution argued that decisions were taken on the basis of recommendations and information submitted by applicants, without members of the Council having full knowledge of critical facts that were revealed later and which, it was claimed, were also unknown to prosecuting authorities at the time.
With regard to Syllouris, the Prosecution maintained that he did not limit himself to a passive or purely institutional role. Instead, he allegedly intervened actively to expedite and coordinate the examination of specific naturalisation applications, making use of his institutional capacity as the second-highest state official.
Specific reference was made to the Gornofski case, where, according to Karaolidou, a request for reconsideration was submitted without the presentation of new evidence, based on information that had already been assessed and rejected at an earlier stage. Such actions, she argued, could not be regarded as routine administrative acts but constituted interventions that materially affected the legality of the process.
Verdict reserved
Concluding her submissions, the Prosecution expressed confidence in the Court, noting that the case is being heard by experienced judges who will assess the facts, evidence and procedural record “in their true dimension” and not through the lens which, she argued, the defence had sought to construct.
The Court reserved its judgment and will deliver its decision on 17 February 2026 at 10:00 a.m.