Do you remember when we wrote about the provocative demand of the Attorney General and his Deputy to be exempt from the new law being prepared by the Parliament on asset declarations?
\nDo you recall their outrageous demand for self-regulation? That is, to submit their asset declarations to the President of the Supreme Court and not make them public! Do you remember when we questioned if there would be MPs in the House Institutions Committee, where the matter is discussed, who would dare vote in favour of such a provocative exemption? Unfortunately, we were wrong.
\nWe believed that in an era where corruption is rampant, Cyprus is internationally maligned, and transparency is more crucial than ever, the MPs would maintain a semblance of integrity. However, the proposal to include prosecutors within the list of officials required to submit asset declarations and have them publicised barely passed the Institutions Committee by a vote of 6-4.
\nNotably, it took admirable courage from one of the MPs to diverge from the party line; otherwise, the vote would have resulted in a tie, sending a disappointing message.
\nLet\u2019s first recall the demand made by the prosecutors in their letter sent to the political leaders and the chairman of the House Institutions Committee: \u201c\u2026a declaration of the assets of the Attorney General of the Republic and the Assistant Attorney General of the Republic, as well as their spouses and minor children (\u2026) will be submitted to the president of the Supreme Constitutional Court,\u201d they stated.
\nThey further added: \u201cThey will not be publicized in the same way as those of judges, as the Attorney General of the Republic and the Deputy Attorney General of the Republic differ from politically exposed persons, as they serve an independent institution far from any political influence. Publicising their personal data (\u2026) would not serve transparency but, on the contrary, would subject (\u2026) them to the unnecessary and unjustified obligation of being exposed as if they were politically exposed persons\u2026\u201d.
\nSuch audacity to brazenly invoke reasons of dignity! They seemingly forget the response to this\u2026 argument, which exposes them irreparably: a name comes to mind \u2013 Rikkos Erotokritou! When a Deputy Attorney General was imprisoned on corruption charges, how dare anyone in the leadership of the Law Office demand exemption from scrutiny and transparency?
\nThis column questioned on December 1, 2023, whether DISY, represented by Annita, who wants to be seen as bringing a new spirit, would vote for such a provocative exemption? What about AKEL\u2019s Stefanos, who is supposed to be about changing his party? Or Nikolas? Could MPs like Mylonas and Koulias vote for such an exemption?
\nAnd yet, we were left speechless when we learned of the positions taken by the members of the Institutions Committee last week. In favour of including prosecutors in the list of officials required to submit asset declarations to the Parliament, the following MPs voted: Demetris Demetriou (chairman of the committee) from DISY, the three AKEL MPs (Pasiourtides, Charalambidou, Kettiros), Pavlos Mylonas from DIKO, and Alexandra Attalidou.
\nHowever, four MPs voted against the inclusion of prosecutors: Karoullas and Georgiou from DISY, Koulias from DIKO, and Themistokleous! Of course, they will provide their interpretation of their stance. Most likely, they will justify their position based on the Supreme Court\u2019s decision that including judges in the asset declaration law is unconstitutional, considering prosecutors as quasi-judges.
\nRegardless of their explanation, what matters is that they went against the need for transparency for all officials and the demand of the majority of citizens. This column must commend the courage of the committee\u2019s president, Demetriou, who went against his party line. It is noteworthy that, in general, his stance on various issues has been bold since the presidential elections.
\nHowever, regardless of the majority formed in the committee, there is a visible risk that the position may change in the plenary. If DISY votes in favour of the exemption, then everything will depend on a single vote.
\nSo, let\u2019s wait and see, ladies and gentlemen, as we count each one of you\u2026asset declarations. asset declarations, MPs, transparency<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General requested to be exempt from a new law requiring asset declarations to be made public. Despite concerns about corruption and the importance of transparency, the proposal barely passed in the Institutions Committee by a vote of 6-4. One MP showed courage by diverging from the party line, preventing a tie in the vote. The demand for exemption was made based on the argument that they are not politically exposed persons and should not be subject to public scrutiny. However, the column questions this reasoning, citing past corruption cases involving high-ranking officials. Members of the Institutions Committee voted in favor of including prosecutors in the list of officials required to submit asset declarations, with some MPs going against their party line. There is a risk that the position may change in the plenary, depending on how certain MPs vote.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":12616,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"Default","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[671,10751,580,240,5663,3348,3894,5292,8569,5702,2577,4879,295,932,3,2369,4893,241,3190,1212,672,153,9046,1003,1295,2828,2796,5679,7922,3940,5319,4442,2788,4569,10127,243,4593,634,1799,5328,7143,2680,4843,4671,8008,9356,8257,4054,8354,168,7314,1571,1774,6305],"class_list":["post-12615","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-other","tag-akel","tag-asset-declarations","tag-attorney-general","tag-auditor-general","tag-chairman","tag-change","tag-charges","tag-children","tag-citizens","tag-committee","tag-concerns","tag-constitutional-court","tag-corruption","tag-court","tag-cyprus","tag-data","tag-demand","tag-deputy-attorney-general","tag-dignity","tag-diko","tag-disy","tag-elections","tag-house","tag-house-institutions-committee","tag-inclusion","tag-institutions","tag-issues","tag-law","tag-law-office","tag-leaders","tag-letter","tag-message","tag-mind","tag-minor","tag-mps","tag-odysseas-michaelides","tag-office","tag-opinion","tag-parliament","tag-party","tag-personal-data","tag-politically-exposed-persons","tag-president","tag-proposal","tag-recall","tag-regulation","tag-response","tag-risk","tag-supreme-constitutional-court","tag-supreme-court","tag-the-deputy-attorney-general","tag-transparency","tag-vote","tag-who"],"acf":{"keyphrase":"","keywords":"","sourceimg":"","country-category":""},"yoast_head":"\n