Apostolos Tomaras
The Constitutional Court's decision to remove Odysseas Michaelides as Auditor General deserves careful consideration by all involved before making public statements. Some opinions focus on Michaelides personally rather than on the core reasoning of the eight judges, which does not pertain to his work as Auditor General. The Council did not judge Michaelides' competence in his duties, but rather his overall public behavior while performing those duties.
In their lengthy decision, the judges detailed instances where Michaelides presented a misleading image to the public, citing specific examples where he contradicted previous decisions and opinions from bodies he had consulted. The judges concluded that Michaelides was being scrutinized for exceeding acceptable limits of communication, making unnecessary statements, insinuations, and misleading declarations, all while showing hostility and a lack of objectivity.
Notably, in cases involving multiple pensions, the Council indicated that there seemed to be an effort to target the Attorney General. They pointed out that it would have been objectively appropriate for Michaelides to inform citizens that the current Attorney General's legal approach aligned with previous legal advice provided in earlier years. Instead, he failed to do so, thereby exposing and targeting the current Attorney General and the institution he serves.
Another glaring instance of distortion and misinformation was Michaelides' complaint to INTOSAI (the International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions) regarding his denied access to Ministry of Interior information, evidently concerning citizenship matters. The response he received did not satisfy him, leading the Council to note that this crucial reference was omitted from the announcement by the Audit Service. Instead, Michaelides misleadingly presented it as interference with his independence from the Executive branch of the state.
Similarly, his letter to the European Commission about direct contract awards by the Ministry of Finance led the Council to conclude that he was spreading misinformation. They found evidence that he, as a public official, violated the presumption of innocence regarding serious allegations against the Assistant Attorney General.
What sets this decision apart from others is that the eight judges unanimously established a code of conduct, both professional and social, for those serving in public office. This decision clearly extends beyond institutional officials; it includes both the Executive and Legislative branches.
In response to the earlier question, “Who oversees the Auditor General?” the Constitutional Court provided an answer. This decision should be evaluated on its own merits, rather than through populist outcries about undermining or dismissing Odysseas Michaelides.
[This op-ed was translated from its Greek original]
