Lawyer questions legal basis of Anastasiades appeal against anti-corruption authority

A lawyer has cast doubt on the legal footing of an appeal by former President Nikos Anastasiades concerning the findings of the Independent Authority Against Corruption, as reported by Cyprus Mail's Greek-language sister outlet. Speaking on the programme “Mesimeri kai Kati,” lawyer Andreas Christou said the move struck him as unusual and that it was unclear which body the former president had approached.

“I don't know what the basis of the appeal is, or where the former President of the Republic went,” Christou said. He added that he could not identify any administrative act that would justify such a challenge, asking whether the matter had been taken to court at all.

Turning to the authority's investigation, Christou noted that a probe had already been carried out, producing results and recommendations, with further procedures to follow. “From the moment there is an investigation, from the moment there are results, from the moment there are recommendations, what the former president's side is asking for, I personally cannot understand,” he said.

He likened the request to a suspect seeking advance access to the evidence that might be used against him. “It's as if we have suspects who want us to hand over all the testimony that might exist against them so they can prepare before going to the interrogator. That doesn't happen in practice,” he stressed.

When evidence is handed over

Asked whether a person is entitled to a full picture of material concerning them, Christou pointed to Article 7 of the criminal procedure rules. He said the provision is clear that a person receives the testimonial material once they become an accused person — that is, once they have a charge sheet in hand. Before that point, he said, the material is not handed over, though questions may be put or specific documents presented for recognition during questioning.

He repeated that he found no legal basis for seeking from the Anti-Corruption Authority what the former president is seeking, and said there is no judicial procedure through which the delivery of the findings could be ordered. “I can't know why this is being done, nor what the basis is,” he said.

Christou also addressed the so-called “black van” case, reiterating his position that there was no reason for the Anti-Corruption Authority to halt its investigation. Under Article 10, he explained, if a parallel investigation is under way by the Legal Service and concerns the same matter, a probe may be stopped — but that does not mean it cannot resume once that investigation concludes. He added that it is not even known whether any Legal Service investigation exists.

Finally, he questioned the legislative provision barring parallel investigations. “Why shouldn't parallel actions be possible?” he asked, adding that the fact the law is written this way does not make it legally sound, and that changing it would require amending the legislation.