The lines between political power, economic interests, and the functioning of the state have become far more blurred than a small country can bear

Nikos Anastasiades’ press conference was not just another (terrible) public relations stunt. It was confirmation that politics in Cyprus continues to grapple with a deeper problem. Not only with the cases under investigation, but with the very way in which power is exercised and defended. Personally, I didn’t expect anything different, nor did the interview strike me as “new.” Much less did it strike me as persuasive.  The former President once again chose his familiar approach: rejection, disparagement, and shifting the focus of the discussion.

It reminded me of the fish—N. Anastasiades—caught in the fisherman’s net, thrashing in vain, knowing that the inevitable end is approaching. The end of whatever remains of his political reputation.

At the press conference, he did not provide answers to questions. Instead, he raised even more questions while attempting to undermine the Independent Anti-Corruption Authority. And when a former president objects not only to the substance of the institutional findings but to the legitimacy of the process itself, then the debate ceases to be legal or political. The debate shifts to undermining the very idea that independent authorities have a role in holding power—even former power—accountable.

The former President had, of course, done this before, in 2019 in the Cooperative Bank case.  If you recall, he “dissolved” the Investigative Committee whose members he himself had appointed (!!!), uttering the unthinkable: “It can’t be that, just because three people—who have no basis for what they’re saying—decided so, I have to say that Iphigenia must be sacrificed to save the institutions.” The reference to Iphigenia was directed at the then-Minister of Finance, Haris Georgiadis.

Naturally, every government leaves a legacy of policies behind. Some also leave institutional imprints. In the case of the Anastasiades administration, the discussion concerns not only specific cases but a broader sense that the lines between political power, economic interests, and the functioning of the state have become far more blurred than a small state with fragile trust in its institutions can bear.

The Anti-Corruption Authority’s findings, regardless of any final court rulings (if it comes to that), are already serving as a catalyst. Not because it identifies potential criminal offenses, but because it documents a pattern warranting further investigation. That is why this particular case does not concern the former President alone. It is a test of the limits of political accountability, and its outcome may shape the future of political culture in Cyprus.

Conclusion

Personally, although I am not a lawyer, I believe it will be difficult to secure a conviction if the case goes to trial. It will be difficult to prove facts that establish criminal liability, as most of the issues that arise are primarily of a political and ethical nature. However, in my view, Nikos Anastasiadis has already taken on a specific role in the public consciousness. And it is a position that does not allow him to feel at ease. Not at all, in fact. The only contribution he can now make to the country is for his case to serve as an example that will finally lead to the correction of such distortions and behaviors in Cyprus’s political life.