He described on Thursday before the Nicosia Permanent Criminal Court how the third defendant was leaving the Central Prison carrying several black cloth bags, in which papers were visible, a prison guard testified on Thursday before the Nicosia Permanent Criminal Court, as part of the trial concerning the allegedly classified documents from the Central Prisons.
The witness even stated that when he asked the third defendant where he was going with such a heavy load, the defendant replied, “You didn’t see anything.”
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
The witness, who has served in the Prison Department since 2017 and works in the Control Center, testified that he saw the third defendant pass through the entrance area and head toward the exit, carrying several black cloth bags.
As he described to the Court, he also had a jacket slung over his shoulders, which, in his estimation, he may have been using to try to cover something up, though he was unable to conceal the bags, due to their number and size.
This is the third defendant, a senior prison guard at the Central Prison, at whose home a large number of documents—allegedly related to the prison—were discovered in April 2025.
When asked by the representative of the prosecution, Vasilis Bissa, why he did not seek further explanations from the third defendant, the witness stated that the defendant was the “right-hand man” of the then-Prison Director and that there was a perception that no one could ask him for explanations.
He added that at that time, the Warden was absent from the prison, while there were strong rumors that she was about to resign. At the same time, there was talk of the Director’s offices being cleared out.
The witness stated that, given what he had been hearing at the time, as well as the fact that the third defendant had access to the Director’s offices, the incident had not come as a surprise to him.
According to his testimony, the incident took place on November 11, 2022, between 7:20 p.m. and 7:40 p.m., while he was working alone at the X-ray machine in the carry-on baggage screening area at the prison entrance.
As he stated, he recalled that the third defendant carried the bags to his personal vehicle, which he usually parked across from the prison entrance, and then drove away in it. He clarified that he did not see anyone else accompanying him.
During his testimony, the witness clarified that the same door is used for both entry and exit, noting that a security check is conducted upon entry but not upon exit.
In response to a question from Mr. Bissa regarding the type of bags, he stated that he could not identify them with absolute certainty; however, he recalled that they were black, bore the inscription “Prison Department,” and that the third defendant was carrying several of them, slung over his shoulders.
As for their contents, he said he could make out some papers, though he did not know exactly what they were or what they contained.
He also explained that he initially thought the jacket draped over the third defendant’s shoulders might have been used to shield him from the cameras located high up, rather than to hide something from him.
The witness further stated that after the incident, he went to the Guard Headquarters to submit his report regarding the weapons inventory and that he may have also mentioned the incident there.
As he said, he did not like the third defendant’s attitude, nor the fact that he had his jacket thrown over the bags.
He added that he had also mentioned the incident to a colleague, with whom he joked, saying, “You’ll see, he’ll end up in prison for this,” though he could not recall to whom he had made that specific remark.
“I’m not 100% sure that they were documents belonging to the prison.”
The witness also mentioned the discovery of a large number of documents at the home of the third defendant, a fact about which, as he said, he learned from the news.
When asked why he wasn’t surprised by the news that a large number of documents related to the prison had been found at the third defendant’s home, the witness replied that when he saw the photographs presented, he recalled that particular night and wondered whether these might be the papers he had seen being carried in the bags.
He clarified, however, that he was not entirely certain that the papers he had seen were prison documents or property.
“They were scraps of paper. The police, in my statement, classified them as documents. They were scraps of paper. What can I say?” he remarked, emphasizing that he could not know with certainty their nature or content.
Triantafyllidis pointed out errors in the dates of the witness’s testimony
Earlier, witness M.H., who has been serving in the Prison Department since 2017, testified. As she stated, during the period she worked in the Staff Leave and Sick Leave Department, she received instructions from a Senior Prison Officer to prepare copies of the seven defendants’ leave forms, with the exception of the then Prison Director, as a different procedure applies to her, since she falls under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Justice.
The witness referred to the defendants’ leave records—both annual and sick leave—and presented relevant copies to the Court, which listed the dates of their absences.
During cross-examination by the attorney for the first defendant, Chris Triantafyllidis, errors were pointed out in the dates listed in her testimony.
Initially, Mr. Triantafyllidis asked her whether she maintained that her testimony was accurate, to which the witness replied in the affirmative.
However, when asked whether she still stood by it or wished to change anything, she answered in the negative.
Subsequently, when the attorney asked her when she had given her testimony, the witness replied that it was on May 20, 2025. Mr. Triantafyllidis pointed out that the statement indicated it had been completed on May 6, 2025—that is, 14 days before the date on which, according to her, it was given.
The witness replied that this was the first time she had given testimony and the first time she had appeared before a court, to which the attorney remarked, “You’re lucky.”
She replied that she was also unlucky in this particular case, adding that she did not know if she should have paid attention to the date.
When Mr. Triantafyllidis asked her if it was a mistake, the witness replied that she did not know.
When it was pointed out that the statement appeared to have been started and completed 14 days before the date she herself stated she had given it, the witness said she did not insist that everything was correct, noting that she had read the statement and hoped it was accurate.
When asked whether there might be other errors, she replied that she hoped not, adding, however, that such a possibility existed.
The attorney then pointed out a second error, this time regarding a license date listed on the second page of the statement as a 2025 license, while the witness stated that she had received instructions from the Senior Officer on May 19, 2025.
“Do you have psychic abilities?” Mr. Triantafyllidis asked her, to which the witness replied that she had skimmed the text, had not noticed the error, and, due to her anxiety, had failed to catch it.
She clarified that the correct year was 2023, acknowledging that there was an error at that point as well.
During cross-examination, Mr. Triantafyllidis also asked her whether the Central Prison is a maximum-security facility, to which the witness replied in the affirmative.
When asked if she was aware that there were malfunctioning cameras or if she had heard anything to that effect, she replied in the negative.
The proceedings will resume on November 23, 2026, at 9:30 a.m., with the defense attorneys cross-examining the prison guard.
All defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty by the Court beyond a reasonable doubt.
READ ALSO: PHOTO: Here are the French environmentalists injured by a hunter’s gunfire – What they claim about the incident at Cape Greco | AlphaNews
Source: CNA
