Based on the interview given to Politis by lawyer Nikos Clerides, “Sandy” had approached him in early 2019 and gave him the material later publicized by Makarios Drousiotis. As she had told him, the reason she approached and trusted him was that Clerides had himself previously (December 2018) made complaints about connections between Supreme Court judges and bankers that were improperly influencing the course of serious criminal cases concerning banking irregularities and the collapse of the economy.
What did Nikos Clerides do when he received, in 2019, the material that today shakes Cypriot public opinion? As he stated to Politis journalist Miranda Lysandrou, “I shared this material with people of absolute trust to investigate it. My brother, Costas Clerides, advised me to do this,” he said initially, clarifying later that his brother was informed afterward. He gave this material to lawyers he trusted and later to some journalists, including Makarios Drousiotis.
Role of former attorney general under scrutiny
We remind that in 2019, Costas Clerides was serving as Attorney General of the Republic of Cyprus. We are talking about the second-highest-ranking official in the state, with immense powers to request the police and any other authority to investigate any matter. How much did Costas Clerides know? It should be recalled that when he lost the major bank trials and when, in 2018, his brother Nikos Clerides posted on social media accusing a series of judges of connections with major law firms, he publicly supported him, thereby implicitly accepting the claims of the existence of a parajudicial network. Today, some call this network the “Rosicrucian Brotherhood.”
Clerides served as Attorney General until July 2020 and could perhaps have done a lot. Instead, he allowed many things to be investigated by others. Consider that there were claims and complaints about the sexual abuse of a minor, rigged trials, the functioning of a parajudicial network, and bribery of judges, which were known to several lawyers and very likely to Costas Clerides as well, according to recent reports by both Cyprus Mail and Phileleftheros. Why does he not speak today? Did he know or not? And if he knew, did he assume the responsibilities that fell to him, or did he perhaps tell his brother to distribute the material to others for investigation? According to lawyers who received the material, the then-President Nicos Anastasiades and possibly other government officials were informed around 2022.
If Nikos Anastasiades was informed and did nothing, he is politically and morally responsible. If Costas Clerides was informed and did nothing, according to Article 134 of the Penal Code, he could be charged with neglect of official duty, a misdemeanor punishable by two years in prison. If he knew of alleged sexual abuse of a minor, he was legally obliged to report it to the police. If he knew and did nothing, the situation is far worse for him.
Institutional inaction questioned
In any case, from 2019, no state institution took action. Neither the President, nor the Attorney General, nor the police acted. Instead, a single journalist was left to “take the chestnuts out of the fire.” Makarios Drousiotis received the material in 2023, investigated it, and proceeded with the revelations in 2026.
A journalist, acting almost like a lone cowboy, assumed enormous personal risk to carry out this disclosure, presenting material that, if proven true, would completely disgrace the state. If untrue, he could face insurmountable legal problems.
No one is infallible, and yes, it is possible that his revelations today are connected to the fact that he is a parliamentary candidate with Volt. On the other hand, everyone has their own story, so it seems tragically ironic to ask today: “Why did you publish this now? Why not submit it to the police?” In a democratic society, which is not short of hypocrites, the questions should perhaps be reversed. Since when is a journalist obliged to inform the police before writing an article? Why did some institutions, before which the material was submitted in 2019, not investigate whether it was true or not?
The answer is not complex. It is simple and explained as a consequence of the corrupt political DNA of this country. In Cyprus, truth is not the main objective. The main objective is personal, not public interest. Any material that exists becomes fodder and a tool for various political, legal, and business factions. In this specific case, the former powerful and inseparable brotherhood of Nicosia split in two, and the knives came out.
Rules not equally applied to all
Where does this mentality lead? When politicians do not act transparently and judicial institutions—the Attorney General, courts, and police—do not perform their duties, citizens’ trust in the state collapses, and the system is devalued. Whether true or false, this story should have been investigated since 2019, not left to discredit the entire system. Trust in the state is not an abstract concept. It is the foundation on which the functioning of democracy, acceptance of laws, and social cohesion rest. When this foundation is fractured, the consequences extend beyond political decay to the entire governance system.
Transparency is a prerequisite for legitimizing political authority. When politicians act without clear terms, decisions are taken without sufficient accountability, or under suspicions of serving interests, suspicion arises. Citizens start to question not only the decisions but also the motives behind them. Politics becomes a means for private arrangements rather than solving citizens’ problems. Even incorrect impressions carry weight; in a democracy, perception often has the same significance as reality.
The problem worsens when judicial institutions do not operate effectively and independently. The role of the Attorney General and the police is crucial to maintaining the rule of law. Delays, selective interventions, or failure to investigate serious cases send a dangerous message to society: that rules are not applied equally to all.
Wider concerns over trust in institutions
Under such conditions, trust does not erode gradually—it collapses. A citizen who feels unprotected by institutions or that justice operates with double standards disengages. They either choose indifference, turn to extreme interpretations or narratives, or vote for whoever first comes along to punish the system. The void of trust is easily filled with populism, conspiracy theories, and generalized political cynicism.
This devaluation affects not only the current rulers but the system itself. When citizens stop believing that institutions can deliver justice or act in the public interest, democratic participation is undermined. Voter abstention rises, engagement decreases, and society becomes more vulnerable to authoritarianism or institutional deviation. Restoring trust is not easy.
Ultimately, the goal is not just to avoid scandals or manage crises. It is to restore the fundamental relationship of trust between citizens and the state. Without it, no policy, however rational, can be implemented effectively. And without it, the system, however institutionally strong, remains vulnerable to its most dangerous adversary: the citizens’ own loss of faith.