The decision by the Law Office to file an acquittal appeal against the Criminal Court ruling that cleared former officials Demetris Syllouris and Christakis Giovani rests on legal reasoning rather than emotional reaction, according to legal expert Simos Angelides.
Angelides, asked to comment on the developments, explained that the Criminal Court’s decision was reached by majority and led to the acquittal of both defendants on all three charges they faced. He said the court evaluated the full body of testimony and explicitly identified specific and significant gaps, as well as omissions in how the prosecution presented the case.
Gaps identified in court ruling
According to Angelides, those gaps related to incomplete connections between elements of evidence, unanswered critical facts, and the failure to summon or examine witnesses who could have clarified key issues. He added that the ruling also referenced matters linked to cross-examination and procedural handling during the investigative stage.
He stressed that these findings came from the court itself rather than from the Law Office, forming part of the reasoning behind the acquittal.
Basis for the acquittal appeal
In response, the Law Office announced within 24 hours that it would proceed with an acquittal appeal, arguing that judicial errors appeared in the ruling. Angelides explained that this means the appeal will likely claim that certain conclusions or findings of the trial court amounted to legal errors that influenced the final outcome.
He noted that the argument may also draw on the minority opinion, which agreed with acquittal on two charges but differed on the third, concerning the offence of influence peddling.
What constitutes judicial error
Angelides clarified that disagreement with judges’ conclusions alone does not amount to judicial error. Instead, it must be shown that the trial court either misapplied the law or assessed the evidence in a legally flawed way, attributing meaning not justified by the trial record.
He added that the full evidentiary material is already known to the parties and that no new testimony can be introduced at the appeal stage. The Supreme Court will therefore review the case solely on the basis of the material presented before the Criminal Court.
Rare reversals and lengthy proceedings
For this reason, reversals of first-instance acquittals remain relatively rare, Angelides said. The higher court must be convinced that, based on the same evidence, the trial body reached a conclusion that could not reasonably be supported.
He also described the overall duration of the proceedings as unacceptable, particularly for criminal cases that should conclude within one or two years. However, he noted that the specific case passed through multiple stages, indictments and changes in the composition of defendants, which complicates the public perception of a five-and-a-half-year timeline.
Public reaction and next legal step
Regarding strong public reaction to cases linked to the citizenship-by-investment programme, Angelides said public anger is understandable, especially after findings documenting widespread irregularities. At the same time, he stressed that the Law Office must defend its work while pointing to objective difficulties, heavy caseloads and the requirement to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
He concluded that the case now stands between two opposing legal interpretations: the Criminal Court’s reasoning, which identifies substantial gaps and omissions, and the prosecution’s position that legal errors exist within those findings. The outcome will now be decided before the Supreme Court.
Also read: Missing witnesses in Al Jazeera case spark tension at briefing
For more videos and updates, check out our YouTube channel
