The conflict of interest is the reason society is watching this legal fiasco unfold. And, unfortunately, it reinforces the belief that either there is rampant negligence or an attempt to cover things up
Shortly after the deposit haircut and rumors that Nikos Anastasiades’ in-laws had withdrawn funds under preferential terms during the lockdown period, the then President of the Republic called on the investigative committee he had appointed to examine “with increased rigor the matters directly or indirectly” attributed to him. He urged them not to limit their investigation to his immediate family members, but to expand it to include the transactions of his law firm—of which, as he stated, he had been a partner until recently.
It was an incident that foreshadowed how the law firm “bearing the name of Nikos Anastasiadis” would remain constantly in the news. And this was confirmed shortly thereafter, when news reports revealed that the very same law firm—which Nikos Anastasiadis had called for to be investigated with “increased rigor”— had also taken on the representation of the airline Ryanair regarding the purchase of Cyprus Airways. The former president’s furious reactions at the time were legendary, as he claimed to have been misled by his partners. Because, as he said, they had violated the condition he had set when he left office: his prohibition against “taking on any client who might have an interest in my presence in the government.” What followed—involving this active law firm, Ryanair, and some forged signatures—did not merely reveal how blatantly citizens were being mocked. It cemented in everyone’s minds that conflicts of interest were becoming the new norm.
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
Of course, this burden of conflict of interest that the Anastasiades government carried with it was not merely the assessment of a handful of sensitive activists, a “noisy minority,” or toxic political figures attempting to set up people’s tribunals to seize power. It was a finding from Myron Nikolaou’s report on the major “Golden Passports” scandal. It accused Nicos Anastasiades of a conflict of interest, as he participated in Cabinet meetings where applications promoted by the law firm “bearing his name” were approved. And this conflict of interest extended to his cabinet, as its members regularly participated in meetings despite the conflict of interest that followed them. This was because they were affiliated with law or accounting firms that were submitting naturalization applications.
This whole situation constantly brought the following question to the forefront: Was it a matter of a misguided understanding of what is legal, what is ethical, and what is unethical? Or was it a matter of the complete brazenness of an elite that ran the state like a private enterprise? Nikos Anastasiadis was forced to appoint two of his sitting ministers to the positions of Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General in order to reinforce the sense of a cover-up within society.
Even then, however, no one felt the need to keep up appearances. If not to defuse the outrage, then at least to salvage the prestige of the institution they claimed to be protecting. It is therefore not at all unreasonable that, with the announcement of the findings on the “Mafia State,” we found ourselves in this complete short circuit. We are watching the Office of the Prosecutor General declare itself incapable of carrying out its duties. And while it admits a lack of objectivity and impartiality, it remains in its position.
She remains in her position and watches impassively as the mechanisms of the state grind to a halt. Without resigning out of a sense of decency or institutional sensitivity. Or at least to prevent the fiasco we witnessed with Mr. Mylonopoulos’s conflict of interest. Now, how the findings are handled will determine our institutional credibility and restore the meaning of accountability and political ethics. But it will also judge the President and his former close associate, Nikos Anastasiadis, who until now had remained untouchable in the face of this crisis. Because the Mylonopoulos case and their knowledge of the conflict of interest have cast the following shadow: Is the investigation into a case that has shaken society so slapdash, or has the conflict of interest become completely normalized within the political system? Whatever the answer may be, it certainly does not reflect well on the government. And, unfortunately, it reinforces the suspicion that behind this whole fiasco, a full-scale cover-up may be underway.
