Nicosia, Cyprus. Former Akel secretary-general Andros Kyprianou has rejected claims that he accepted a proposed compromise over the 2020 appointments of George Savvides and Savvas Angelides. He dismissed assertions that such an arrangement was suggested to block the appointment of former justice minister Ionas Nicolaou.
Denial of reported discussions
Speaking on CyBC radio on Wednesday, Kyprianou said reports linking him to such discussions were unfounded and questioned the basis of the claims.
Response to references involving Nikolatos
Kyprianou responded to references made by Makarios Drousiotis regarding alleged coordination around key legal appointments, calling it “funny” that Myron Nikolatos’ name was involved and denying that the former supreme court judge ever proposed Savvides for the position of attorney-general.
He said their interactions were limited to formal and social settings, including meetings at the supreme court and a farewell dinner attended by Savvides, adding that “no one ever urged me to propose George Savvides”.
Appointments attributed to the president
Kyprianou said the decision over appointments rested solely with the president and rejected suggestions that he had any determining role.
“I did not know that I had become president in 2020 and appointed the attorney-general and his deputy,” he said.
Comments on broader allegations
Addressing broader allegations attributed to Drousiotis, Kyprianou said “everyone should blame someone for the issues they are responsible for, not accuse them of things they have absolutely nothing to do with”.
He also said he regretted that Nikolatos was being implicated.
Drousiotis’ claims about the ‘Sandy’ archive
Kyprianou’s statements come as Drousiotis maintains that material he describes as part of the ‘Sandy’ archive contains evidence of coordination between political and administrative figures during critical periods surrounding the 2020 appointments.
According to Drousiotis, internal communications reference individuals connected to state institutions and political offices acting as intermediaries.
What do you make of the conflicting accounts about the events surrounding the 2020 appointments?