Who protects us from the protectors?
Personally, I don’t know whether there was a cover-up or any illegal activity on the part of any official in the “black van” case. I have reasonable suspicions, but I won’t swear to it. And that is precisely why I would expect a state governed by the rule of law to do what is absolutely obvious: to investigate, reach a conclusion, and inform the public.
Unfortunately, however, instead of doing what should go without saying, we find ourselves in a situation where the average citizen has a hard time feeling that they are not being taken for a ride. The Independent Anti-Corruption Authority had decided to expand its investigation into the “black van” case. In fact, it clearly states that this included the possibility of a conflict of interest involving the Assistant Attorney General and that the Legal Service was aware of its intention. The Legal Service, on the other hand, maintains that the aspects brought to its attention had already been investigated and that no wrongdoing was found. Ultimately, the investigation was closed.
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
It is not my place, as a citizen, to decide what the truth is. What I do demand, however, is that there be an institutional mechanism capable of determining the truth independently and beyond any shadow of a doubt. Because when the impression is created that an institution that might be the subject of an investigation is simultaneously in a position to influence whether that investigation can proceed, then we have a problem of trust. And trust cannot be imposed through announcements. It is earned through transparency.
A democracy, when its citizens have reason to doubt, does not ask them to believe. It gives them a reason to believe. Because the strength of an institution is not demonstrated when it can control others, but when it accepts that it, too, can be held accountable.
Two and a half thousand years ago, the Athenians established Euthuna, the process by which rulers were held accountable after their term of office. There were auditors and officials responsible for overseeing those who exercised public authority. The ancient Greeks, despite all the flaws of their democracy, had realized something that we choose to forget: that anyone who exercises power must be subject to scrutiny. And they cannot be the judge of their own accountability.
That is what worries me most in Cyprus today. Not whether a particular official is guilty or innocent. That must be determined by a truly independent process. What worries me is that, case after case, statement after statement, contradiction after contradiction, we continue to receive no clear answers. And then those in power wonder why citizens do not trust the institutions.
The Attorney General and the Legal Service are not just any state institutions. They are at the very heart of the rule of law. That is precisely why it is not enough for them to act within the law. Their procedures must be so transparent that not even the slightest suspicion arises that some people are treated differently from others.
Cypriot society is not calling for convictions. Nor is it seeking to replace investigators, judges, or institutions. Society is demanding accountability. It is demanding answers. It demands accountability. In other words, it demands what, in a well-governed state, should be considered self-evident. No institution and no official should be above scrutiny. Not because they are necessarily guilty, but precisely because only independent scrutiny can prove that they are not. And above all, it demands an end to this mockery of the citizens’ intelligence. Because every time a reasonable question is met with a “oh, what a tragedy,” every time a contradiction gives rise to a second contradiction, and every time an investigation is halted without leaving behind convincing answers, it doesn’t close a case—it opens yet another crack in citizens’ trust in the state.
At some point, the “black van” will cease to be in the news. The next case will come, the next announcement, the next institutional confrontation. For me personally, the unanswered question will remain: Who oversees those who have the power to oversee everyone else? Accountability cannot operate à la carte. It cannot be strict toward those below and blind toward those above. And above all, it cannot depend on who happens to be on the other side of the scrutiny at any given time.
Cypriot citizens have shown that they can forgive a mistake. They can even accept a decision with which they disagree. What they will not forgive is being treated as naive and stupid. Because the longer the page of accountability remains blank, the darker the image of meritocracy becomes in this country.
