On Wednesday, members of the KParliamentary Committee on Legal Affairs on Wednesday.

In his opening remarks, the Minister of Justice and Public Order, Kostas Fytiris, said that 39 bills had been drafted and that amendments to other legislation were being considered, with three of them bringing about significant changes.

Specifically, he noted that the proposed provisions include the separation of the roles of the Attorney General and the Chief Public Prosecutor, both of whom will be appointed by the President of the Republic for an eight-year term without the right to reappointment.

He added that the independence of the Legal Service from the civil service will be regulated through the creation of the position of Director General of the Legal Service, as well as the establishment of a Prosecutorial Council to oversee staff appointments and disciplinary proceedings.

Regarding the positions of Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General, he stated that the provisions will be consistent with those for the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General, adding that there will be a provision for the signing of a memorandum of cooperation between the Republic, the Attorney General, and the Chief Public Prosecutor.

He added that the legal systems of the United Kingdom, Ireland, and Malta had been studied, all three of which provide for judicial review.

Noting the Attorney General’s reservations regarding the constitutionality of the separation of powers, he said that the executive branch is determined to move forward with the aim of finding a middle ground, adding that the Supreme Court will review the decisions of the Attorney General.

For his part, the Attorney General of the Republic, George Savvides, said that this is the most significant constitutional amendment since the founding of the Republic of Cyprus, adding that both judicial review and the separation of the Attorney General’s powers constitute an amendment to the Constitution.

On the issue of the unchallengeable nature of the Attorney General’s decisions, he expressed the view that the interference with the Constitution is not insurmountable, adding that the concern lies in the fact that the amendment refers to the creation of the role of the General Public Prosecutor, about which he has constitutional reservations.

“The government is not at odds with the Attorney General; I respect the desire for separation, and the government respects the Attorney General’s reservations,” he noted next, adding that he signed the explanatory memorandum for the bill proposed by the Council of Ministers, attaching the reservations and the positions of the committee of constitutional experts he had appointed to address the issue.matter.

On the issue of constitutionality, he said that an attempt is being made to amend provisions that affect the bicommunal character of the Constitution, as the new position of Assistant Public Prosecutor should belong to the Turkish Cypriot community.

He added that the amendment regarding the separation of powers could undermine the core of the Constitution and Article 112.1, as it affects the basic structure of the Constitution, which provides for only three senior officials (Attorney General, Auditor General, and Comptroller General).

He also noted that the law of necessity does not permit the amendment of fundamental articles of the Constitution, adding that it is particularly precarious for the legislature to provide for new bicommunal positions in the Constitution, at a time when it is invoking the law of necessity to avoid implementing bicommunal provisions,

“I have the gravest doubts and reservations regarding the constitutionality of the bills; there are clear constitutional risks if they are passed, with enormous, insurmountable consequences in the event of a judicial challenge,” he further emphasized.

Regarding the structure of the Legal Service, he said that a bill has been drafted to make the Service autonomous based on GRECO’s recommendations, however, the issue of transferring employees from the public sector to the Legal Service remains pending.

In turn, the Chairman of the Public Service Commission (EDY), George Papageorgiou, said that the Commission has expressed concerns regarding constitutional and legal issues related to staffing, since currently, apart from the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General, all staff are civil servants, adding that these issues will be examined when the time comes.

He added that there is a 2016 GRECO report which states that the existing procedures for the recruitment and disciplinary oversight of NY officials are satisfactory.

PASYDY Secretary-General Stratis Matthaiou, in turn, also expressed reservations about the NY’s autonomy, adding that a meeting on the matter with the Attorney General had been scheduled for early October.

The president of the Pan-Cyprian Bar Association, Michalis Vorkas, said that the constitutionality of the amending laws will ultimately be reviewed by the Supreme Constitutional Court.

“Society seeks transparency, so that there are no issues or suspicions regarding the independence and duration of the appointments,” he noted, adding that bicommunalism is a fundamental element of the Constitution.

In his remarks following the conclusion of the session, Mr. Savvidis reiterated that the difference in perspective with the government stems from the fact that the Attorney General, as is his duty, expressed reservations regarding the constitutionality of the proposedreforms.

“It is a fact that after studying the issue, following the establishment of a Committee of Experts comprising seven distinguished constitutional scholars, the majority of whom—four out of seven—have ruled that the proposed amendments are unconstitutional, my own position is that they are unconstitutional. The Cyprus Bar Association also appears to share this position, and has confirmed its agreement today. “Of course, the final arbiter on this matter, as with all matters of a constitutional nature, is the Supreme Constitutional Court,” he continued.

“Therefore, having set forth our own views and positions, it is now up to the House of Representatives to continue the debate and decide whether or not to proceed with the passage of the proposed amendments. I expect that if the reform goes forward, inevitably, once the Office of the Public Prosecutor becomes operational and the new Chief Public Prosecutor files the first case or cases, there will be challenges to the constitutionality of the laws, at which point, in its final form and upon final adjudication, the matter will be brought before the Supreme Constitutional Court. “This is simply the reality; there is no conflict—everyone is simply fulfilling their constitutional role,” he further emphasized.

Regarding the issue of immunity from prosecution, he expressed the view that the interference with the Constitution is not as significant as that concerning the separation of powers. “As the government’s current bill stands, it concerns the immunity of the Attorney General, so once again I have constitutional reservations. But if there were a proposal to subject the Attorney General’s immunity to review today, I believe it would be possible to proceed with this within the framework of existing case law without any significant amendment to the Constitution; though this, of course, is something the members of Parliament will decide in their wisdom as the debate progresses,” he added.

When asked about his presence at today’s debate, given that his term is set to end in a few months, the Attorney General said that it is precisely the fact that he is leaving soon that allows him to be present, because it means he has absolutely no personal stake in whether this reform is passed, and that whatever is voted on will not affect his own term of office.

“The role of the Attorney General under the Constitution is to judge and comment on the constitutionality of this reform. That is what I have done; that is my job, and I have the courage to express my opinion; this is what the independent institution I lead demands, and I would be at fault if I did not say what I truly believe. “After such a thorough study of the issue, I believe that I did not limit myself to my personal opinion but convened a group of experts who offered their views,” he emphasized next.

When asked what would happen if the bills were ruled unconstitutional, Mr. Savvidis initially said that if the bills pass the Parliament, he does not expect the President of the Republic to exercise his constitutional right to refer the matter to the Supreme Constitutional Court to determine at an early stage whether the law is constitutional or not.

“If he signs the law, it means we will proceed with its implementation; if we proceed with its implementation, it means we will appoint a General Public Prosecutor and an Assistant General Public Prosecutor, we will have to establish organizational structures, develop service plans, recruit staff, and staff this office; and I expect that the constitutional challenge will be raised by the first defendant or the second person to be charged, not by the Attorney General as provided for in the Constitution, but by the Chief Public Prosecutor; thus, he will raise the issue of constitutionality, and it will be definitively determined there whether or not it is constitutional. “If it is ruled there to be unconstitutional, then that means all the structures that have been built will have to be dismantled, and the Legal Service will have to be reestablished in its current form,” he concluded.

For her part, the committee chair, DISY MP Fotini Tsiridou, said that in addition to the 37 relevant bills, the committee is also considering legislative proposals from the previous parliamentary session.

READ ALSO: Attorney General: Rejects allegations that he obstructed an investigation into Angelidis regarding the black van | AlphaNews

“We have decided together with all our colleagues on the Legal Affairs Committee, and it is very positive that we all agreed on the procedure; to move forward with our parliamentary groups, and in two weeks the members of the Legal Affairs Committee will meet specifically to discuss all the issues of concern to them and what procedure we should followfrom here on out, because this issue certainly cannot remain pending on the Legal Affairs Committee’s agenda,” he said.

“The Democratic Alarm is in favor of reforming and modernizing the Office of the Attorney General, because we all agree that there is room for improvement. However, this must be done in a way that does not create any constitutional problems that could prove fatal in the future,” he added, noting that the Attorney General has stated he is prepared whether with the Legal Affairs Committee or with each parliamentary group separately, to address any constitutional concerns that individual members of parliament may have.

AKEL MP Andreas Pasiourtides said that the party had identified as early as 2019 the need for specific amendments to the institutions of the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General and had submitted a relevant bill to that effect.

“Seven years later, we are still in discussions regarding the reform of the Legal Service and the Office of the Attorney General. It is true that today the new composition of the Legal Affairs Committee has become aware of the two differing views between the Legal Service and the current government, and no matter how much the Attorney General has explained this paradox, it still persists. In other words, the government’s legal advisor is signing bills to reform the Legal Service, which he deems unconstitutional, and the executive branch pushes for their passage, believing that this change is necessary,” he continued.

He added that a procedural decision on how the debate will proceed should be made in the coming weeks. “The necessary timelines must be set so that, one way or another, this reform is brought before the Plenary and everyone can vote as they deem politically and institutionally correct,” he noted.

He also said that it is very likely that this reform, if passed, will be challenged in the future before the Supreme Constitutional Court. “It is a complex process. It is a very important reform; it must be studied very carefully. We recognize that our Constitution enshrines the bicommunal character of the country, which in many cases constrains any decisions. Beyond that, each party will state its position at the appropriate time before the Plenary and before the Committee during the article-by-article debate,” he added.

ELAM MP Linos Ioannis Hatzigeorgiou, said that the entire debate needs to mature so that any reform that emerges will be both functional and constitutional.

“As ELAM, we will follow the entire discussion; we have our own proposals as well as potential amendments, so that we can achieve a reform that will help ensure the proper administration of justice,”he noted.

He added that an initial discussion has taken place to potentially examine the issue of immunity in conjunction with term limits, as well as the independence of both the Attorney General and the Public Prosecutor. “We haven’t reached a conclusion on how to proceed, but what was discussed is that in two weeks from now, the parties will present their positions before the Committee, so that we can determine how and on what timeline the entire process will proceed,” he added.

Yiannis Laouris, a member of parliament for Direct Democracy, said that Cyprus is held captive by an anachronistic and outdated constitution.

“Today we are discussing a specific resolution or constitutional amendment, and once again we are encountering disagreement among seven legal experts, seven constitutional experts disagree among themselves about whether we can make the change we’re discussing. The fact that they disagree with one another means the picture isn’t clear,” he said.

“From the public’s perspective, however, we face a different reality. The public wants Cyprus to stop being a prisoner of the Constitution; they want Cyprus to move forward. We, as Direct Democracy, have launched an initiative to build cross-party cooperation, and we are also inviting legal experts from outside to work with us, to identify all the problems with the Constitution and, whether piecemeal or as a whole, make changes for the better. “It is time to address even the Constitution; we cannot hold the people of Cyprus captive for 50 years,” he added.

Source: CNA