Former Auditor General Odysseas Michaelides has accused the President of the Republic of Cyprus and the Attorney General of colluding against him to “eliminate” him. This accusation relates to the salaries and benefits of President Nikos Christodoulides during his tenure as Government Spokesperson. In a letter addressed to the Parliamentary Audit Committee, Michaelides urged the Committee to continue investigating the matter, despite it seemingly being closed by the new Auditor General.
In his letter, Michaelides noted that the entity under scrutiny in this audit was the Presidential Administration, with the Head of the Presidential Administration responsible for ensuring compliance with the recommendations in the referenced report. This essentially required Christodoulides (not in his capacity as President) to repay funds unlawfully received between 2014 and 2018. Michaelides stated that if the Head of the Presidential Administration required legal guidance, they could have sought an opinion from the Attorney General.
Michaelides further asserted that basic ethical principles required the President to ensure that the Head of the Presidential Administration acted independently. Instead, he alleged that the President, violating such ethical standards, personally sought a legal opinion, exerting undue influence by leveraging the weight of his position. “Essentially, the Attorney General acted as though he were Christodoulides’ private lawyer,” Michaelides claimed.
Constitutional timeframes and alleged collusion
Michaelides highlighted that Article 139 of the Constitution allows for a 30-day period during which an authority may challenge the powers of another authority. Thus, he argued, if the Presidency believed the report had been issued in excess of the Auditor General’s authority, it had the option to request resolution by the Supreme Constitutional Court by January 6, 2024. “However, the plan of the President of the Republic, in collaboration with the Attorney General and his Deputy, was my elimination. A goal they ultimately achieved with the decisive assistance of the President and the seven members of the Supreme Constitutional Court,” Michaelides claimed.
He added that the Attorney General had issued his opinion “whitewashing Christodoulides’ debts” at the same time that discussions at the Presidential Palace were underway regarding the strategy to remove him from office and determining who would sign the relevant request. “It was ultimately decided that the Attorney General would sign it, as the President feared the political cost. Similarly, now, fearing the political cost, the President hides behind the Attorney General while pursuing my financial destruction,” Michaelides wrote.
Leaked legal opinion and accusations of misconduct
Michaelides stated that the opinion, leaked to Reporter, accused him of acting “abusively and beyond his authority.” He also referred to additional revelations by Politis, which claimed the opinion described his behaviour as “improper.” Despite this, he said, the misconduct allegations were not included in the request for his dismissal. Michaelides alleged this omission was deliberate, meant to protect those involved, citing a separate issue regarding the provision of service weapons to private individuals.
He criticised the selective leaking of the legal opinion, calling it consistent with the Presidency and the Legal Service’s “policy of obfuscation and lack of transparency.”
Specific allegations and findings
Regarding the failure to publish the government’s decision to approve additional benefits for Christodoulides as Government Spokesperson, Michaelides referenced paragraph 3(d) of the Audit Office report. The Attorney General’s leaked opinion argued that Article 57.4 of the Constitution, which requires the publication of government decisions unless otherwise decided, only applies to “executive administrative acts subject to challenge under Article 146 of the Constitution.”
On the issue of dual authority, Michaelides noted that Reporter claimed the Legal Service relied on a previous opinion by former Attorney General Costas Clerides, which concluded that there was no dual authority issue. However, Michaelides emphasised that the Audit Office had only pointed out that Christodoulides was never officially appointed as Government Spokesperson but was merely performing the duties of the role.
Regarding the foreign maintenance allowance of €20,804, Michaelides said the opinion did not address the arguments made in the Audit Office report. He added that the Audit Office left the resolution of the matter to the discretion of the President.
On the issue of the official vehicle, Michaelides argued that even if Christodoulides had been formally appointed as Government Spokesperson, he would not have been entitled to use the vehicle for private purposes. He accused the Attorney General of covering up Christodoulides’ violations during this period.
Accumulated leave and alleged financial mismanagement
Michaelides highlighted that during his time as Government Spokesperson, Christodoulides failed to complete the leave forms required for civil servants. After becoming Foreign Minister, Christodoulides retroactively completed these forms, which led to the crediting of 13 days of leave for each of the four years he served as Government Spokesperson. This accumulated leave amounted to 70 days, the legal limit, with a total payout of €18,176 upon his retirement. “The illegal payment was made by the Foreign Ministry’s accounting department when he was the Foreign Minister,” Michaelides claimed.
Accusations of collusion
Michaelides accused the Attorney General of transforming from an independent legal adviser into a political supporter and apologist for the President. He alleged mutual benefit between the Presidency and the Legal Service, extending to issues like asset declarations and transparency in the funding of the Social Support Agency.
Call for Parliamentary oversight
Finally, Michaelides called on the Parliamentary Audit Committee not to close the matter, even if the new Auditor General has decided to do so. “This does not mean the issue should also be closed for your Committee, which has every right to exercise parliamentary oversight,” he concluded in his letter.
Source: Sigmalive
