At the forefront of a counterattack yesterday was the Legal Service, which found itself in the corner of the ring under heavy criticism from various directions following the majority acquittal issued by the Nicosia Assize Court in the citizenship case involving the Al Jazeera video.
Speaking at a press conference, the state prosecutor and head of the Legal Service's communications team, Polina Efthyvoulou, defended the handling of the Al Jazeera case, announced the decision to file an appeal and took aim at the media and political parties for their criticism, referring to an attempt to dismantle the Legal Service.
Beyond the expected announcement of the appeal, the Legal Service essentially responded to the points raised by the Assize Court in its majority decision.
In her opening remarks, Polina Efthyvoulou stated that the court's decision is fully respected, but the Legal Service has the right to disagree with it, which is why the option of an appeal exists. She explained that in the view of the Legal Service, there are judicial errors in the majority decision of the Assize Court which must be developed during the appeal hearing.
Apart from the outcome of acquittal for the two defendants, the Legal Service also disagrees with the references concerning the summoning of specific witnesses, such as officials from the Ministry of Finance. Efthyvoulou did not provide further details, noting that the grounds of appeal will be analysed extensively before the Court of Appeal.
Regarding the debate surrounding the widely discussed video and the fact that it was not accepted by the court as part of the evidentiary material and therefore was not taken into account, Efthyvoulou stated that for material to be considered as evidence it must have been obtained legally. She stressed that videos or recordings made without the consent of the participants cannot be used in court.
Generalised attacks
The state prosecutor commented strongly on the criticism directed at the Legal Service following the acquittal of Demetris Syllouris and Christakis Jovanni. She said: "There is concern within the Legal Service when journalists and political parties, instead of limiting themselves to institutional criticism, proceed with generalised attacks that nullify the work of prosecuting officers. This is dangerous and works against the criminal justice system itself. If the officers do not defend their institutional role, trust in the entire system is put at risk."
She emphasised that criticism is legitimate, but dismantling the work of criminal justice officials is not. She added that the Legal Service respects and protects the judiciary by limiting itself to legal argumentation, and therefore there should be corresponding respect and a protective shield for those who serve the criminal justice system.
The threats
Polina Efthyvoulou also commented extensively on what preceded regarding the two witnesses who ultimately refused to testify. These were two individuals who, despite having given statements to the police, later disappeared and did not appear in court despite efforts made. During the press conference, She read excerpts from the hearing transcripts of 18 March 2025, in which the representative of the prosecution, Haris Karaolidou, informed the court of the reasons why the two witnesses would not testify.
Regarding the first witness, she referred to threats he claimed to have received against his life, without specifying the source. This was Antony Kay William, who had given five statements to the police and whose testimony, according to the prosecution, was essential and sufficiently satisfactory for proving the case, particularly charges 4 and 5. The second witness, a journalist from Al Jazeera, also changed her stance and, despite assurances from the organisation and despite having given statements to the police, did not testify at trial.
"They deal with the underworld"
"We cannot remain silent in the face of this attempt to dismantle the work of public prosecutors while the lawyers of the Republic stand guard. Every time we appear before the court we represent the Republic. The prisons are full because these people work every day. They deal with the underworld, with organised crime. Heaven help us if political parties, the media or society do not support us. We have faced bomb attacks, we check under our cars every day. Courts have been set on fire. Convictions are not an end in themselves," Efthyvoulou stressed.
She explained that one of the reasons for holding the press conference was to defend the institutional role of the Legal Service. "We are the voice of the officers who handle criminal cases in all courts. We cannot remain silent in the face of an attempt to dismantle the profession," she said, adding that the officers of the Legal Service "stand guard every day".
It is being commented on...
It is not common for the Legal Service to call press conferences following major court decisions. In the past, whenever there were official statements regarding investigations or other developments, these were made either by the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General. Yesterday, Wednesday, the heads of the Legal Service chose not to appear and instead the role was taken on by state prosecutor Polina Efthyvoulou and senior state lawyers Christia Kythreotou and Andreas Aristidis.
"Bad for the prosecution"
The acquittal in the Al Jazeera video case was described as "bad for the prosecution" by legal expert Achilleas Emilianides, who noted that the majority's reasoning did not simply conclude that the offences were not proven but included specific references to omissions and weaknesses in the investigative process. Speaking on Politis 107.6 & 97.6 radio programme Morning Review, he said that the majority decision referred particularly to witnesses who were not called, to the weakness of the evidence presented and to mistakes and omissions during the investigative stage.
He noted that this was not merely a decision that the offences were not proven for specific reasons, but a judgment that touches on the overall manner in which the case was investigated and prosecuted.
He added that when dealing with "a case so high profile and of such enormous public interest", an acquittal with such reasoning constitutes a negative development for the prosecution, especially given that criminal charges had already been filed. Asked about the absence of key witnesses, he said there are "many reasons" why a prosecution may choose not to call someone, noting that "you may expect that their testimony will be against the case you are trying to prove. You may consider that the quality of the testimony is weak and will backfire. There may be a refusal by the witness to testify."