Newsroom
The Independent Anti-Corruption Authority has rejected the suggestion that it had not intended to examine the role of the Assistant Attorney General in the “black van” case.
The Authority issued the clarification on Tuesday after comments by Attorney General George Savvides the previous day indicating that the Authority had not raised questions about the Law Office’s handling of the case or a possible conflict of interest involving Assistant Attorney General Savvas Angelides.
According to the Authority, its decision to investigate the case was not limited to selected aspects. It had decided to examine all elements of the black van affair and formally informed the Attorney General of its intentions in a letter dated July 16, 2026.
A meeting was subsequently held at the Law Office on July 29 to clarify exactly what the proposed investigation would cover.
The meeting was attended by the Attorney General, the Assistant Attorney General, a prosecutor and a Senior Counsel of the Republic. The Anti-Corruption Authority was represented by the Commissioner for Transparency, one member of the Authority and a legal associate.
The Authority said the Assistant Attorney General left the meeting after it became clear that the proposed investigation would also concern him personally.
It argued that this meant the Law Office was aware, at least from that meeting, that Angelides was among the people whose role could be examined.
The dispute centres partly on a letter sent by the Attorney General on July 30, one day after the meeting. In that letter, he reportedly stated that all matters the Authority wished to investigate had already been examined.
The Anti-Corruption Authority said that statement reasonably gave the impression that the Assistant Attorney General-related issues had also been covered.
The Authority also stressed that its intention to examine the black van case had been clearly communicated and that it had spent a significant period collecting information about the events surrounding the case.
The “black van” affair concerns a surveillance vehicle that became the subject of public and political scrutiny, with questions arising over its operation, the authorities’ handling of information relating to it and the subsequent legal and investigative response.
The latest exchange places the scope of the Anti-Corruption Authority’s investigation at the centre of a dispute between the independent body and the Law Office, with the Authority insisting that its intention to examine the Assistant Attorney General was known before the investigation was formally expanded.
