Nicosia, Cyprus. The Court of Appeal unanimously rejected an appeal by Renos Kyriakides, upholding a first-instance ruling that a contested Haravgi newspaper publication linking him to Eoka B was protected by qualified privilege and published in good faith. The decision was issued on April 9, the court said on Monday.
Background to the case
Kyriakides was an Eoka fighter and a figure referenced in historical and political contexts linked to the period 1955–59. His name resurfaced decades later in a libel case concerning alleged links to the Eoka B organisation and the early 1970s, which he strongly denied.
Contested publication and first-instance findings
The appellate court confirmed an earlier judgment in a libel action filed by Kyriakides following a 2013 article linking him to the “inner circle of Eoka B”. The publication stated, among other things, that “R.K. had close relations with the inner circle of Eoka B in Cyprus and specifically with… of whom he was, of course, a choice.”
Kyriakides argued that the article was defamatory, false, and published without prior verification. The first-instance court found the publication was defamatory, but ruled that it fell within the Civil Wrongs Law provisions covering defamatory material published under qualified privilege.
The court noted that while the available evidence “may not suffice for a successful plea of truth,” it “could in no way lead to the conclusion that the defendant knew what was published was false.” It recorded testimony from “direct sources” describing Kyriakides as a “fighter of the 1971–1974 period,” a term which, according to the evidence, referred to Eoka B.
The first-instance court also cited historical references portraying Kyriakides as a person “associated with Eoka B,” and evidence that he had been arrested as a suspect in the abduction of a then minister, an act said to have been “organised and executed by Eoka B”.
Appeal arguments and court reasoning
The appeal raised issues concerning the application of the qualified privilege defence, whether the publication referred to Kyriakides, and legal costs.
The Court of Appeal recalled jurisprudence stating that “in cases of doubt, the balance must tilt in favour of freedom of expression.” It found the publication concerned a matter of public interest, as it related to alleged irregularities and possible criminal acts within an institution, and that there was a duty to inform the public.
The court said the burden of proving bad faith rested with Kyriakides and that “it does not appear that he ever discharged it.” It added that even where inaccuracies exist, “a margin for exaggeration, even for inaccuracy, is allowed within the framework of the defence of qualified privilege.”
What do you think this ruling means for how newspapers report on matters of public interest in Cyprus?