Thanasis Photiou
The “Santis” case was flawed on structural, substantive and journalistic grounds. The investigative work was inadequate. There was no basic check of the reliability of the “evidence”. The reports that, together with the “evidence”, formed the basis of the entire narrative were not cross-checked or verified before publication. The case was built on glaring gaps and contained contradictions. Extremely serious allegations were accepted without reservation and without a solid evidentiary basis. Inexcusable mistakes were made that undermined the credibility of the investigation and left the journalistic side exposed.
Given Makarios Drousiotis’s history, the fronts he had opened, the people he had angered and the “old scores” that remained unsettled, I had focused from the outset in my articles on what I considered the real issue at stake. For me, it was not about disproving or confirming the allegations, or verifying or dismantling the case. The real issue was the Rule of Law. Its credibility and the transparency of the way it operates. That meant the state had a duty to ensure that the handling of the case, the mechanism used and the manner in which it was investigated would leave no shadows and no room for doubt.
Here is a characteristic excerpt: “What is the responsibility of the state when faced with such serious allegations? The complaints must be investigated. Its reflexes must demonstrate a determination to establish the full truth, while ensuring credibility, independence, impartiality and reliability. The police, prosecutorial and judicial authorities, having fallen into many sins, have cemented the impression of questionable institutional and official conduct and have shaken (irreparably?) citizens’ trust. There must be no sign of hesitation or the slightest suspicion that the case is being devalued, dismantled and quickly closed. The issue at stake is neither Makarios Drousiotis, nor the verification of the complaints and their outcome, nor the related questions that everyone raises about the timing, motives and so on. Nor is it the convincing substantiation of the evidence presented. Nothing is taken off the table. Everything remains there and everything is examined. For the state, however, this is not the issue at stake. The issue at stake is trust in the Rule of Law. It is as simple as that. Everything else is malicious and mere talk. Institutions must convince us that they do not operate as a mechanism for self-protection, or within a framework of mutual protection within the system. Not through embarrassment, evasion or administrative haste. Such conduct is not characteristic of institutions. On the contrary, it has the characteristics of a sect. If anything should concern us, not only now and not specifically in this case, but always and in every case, it is the possibility that no outcome will be believed. Because the very course of the investigation will leave behind more shadows than it supposedly seeks to dispel.”
So I ask you: Is anyone in a position to claim, hand on heart, that the handling of the case by the authorities ensured what we described above as the “real issue at stake”?
The book Mafia State was an entirely different matter from “Santis”. Its pages contained allegations of entanglement and corruption involving politicians, judges, businessmen and financial figures, lawyers, state officials, police officers... The allegations were not vague or general. They came with names, dates, incidents, documents, references, conversations... Many of the allegations had also appeared in the book The Gang, which preceded Mafia State. In a properly governed state, in a European country where the Rule of Law is the alpha and omega, an investigation would have been unavoidable. The issue would have dominated the news. Media organizations would have demanded answers from those named. Journalistic teams would have tried to establish whether the evidence was credible. If the allegations were unfounded, they should have been disproved. If they were inaccurate, they should have been dismantled. If they contained errors, those errors should have been exposed. The protagonists would have faced tough questions. The institutions would have examined whether criminal offenses had been committed. All this in a properly governed state, in a European country where the Rule of Law is the alpha and omega.
In Cyprus, deafening silence prevailed. There was almost universal dismissal or indifference, from every branch of authority and every institution. That lasted until the pressure generated by the discussion on social media made such silence impossible.
So I ask you again: When exactly did the authorities ensure what we described above as the “real issue at stake”? When they turned a deaf ear? When they considered the matter beneath their attention? Or when they acted with lightning speed and, after deciding that false information had been disseminated, drew up a lengthy and serious indictment, pointing the way to the Assize Court?
What is a citizen of a properly governed state, in a European country where the Rule of Law is the alpha and omega, supposed to infer from the purpose behind such mass charges? What are they supposed to infer when they learn that, incidentally, four years after the book was published, a police officer and member of the Intelligence Service filed a complaint with the police over the disclosure of his identity by name? And that the Police launched an investigation into the disclosure of personal data, ignoring or overlooking the fact that, under the law on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data, any complaint about a violation must be submitted to the competent independent authority, namely the Commissioner for Personal Data Protection?
And further, ignoring or overlooking the fact that the book was published in 2022, while the specific criminal provision making the disclosure of a member’s affiliation with the Cyprus Intelligence Service a distinct criminal offense was passed and introduced into legislation in 2023. Therefore, as the Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) provide, the retrospective application of criminal laws is prohibited?
So I ask you, what is a citizen of a properly governed state, in a European country where the Rule of Law is the alpha and omega, supposed to infer when the Interior Minister’s reflexes kick in during the summer lull, multi-member committees convene and instructions are given to the police to investigate whether an online fundraising campaign is legal?
What, then, is the citizen supposed to infer?
Gentlemen, which law do reasonable suspicions violate?
