Anastasiades rejects anti-corruption report findings on Mafia State allegations

Nicosia, Cyprus. Former president Nicos Anastasiades on Tuesday issued an 8,400-word defence of his actions before and during his presidency, rejecting allegations addressed in the anti-corruption authority’s report into the book Mafia State by his former aide and journalist Makarios Drousiotis.

The statement followed points he made at a press conference in June, addressing the report chapter by chapter and setting out his account of the events.

Claims over investigative process

Anastasiades said it was clear from the material presented that inspection officers and members of the anti-corruption authority had violated essential legal rules governing investigations.

He said this was particularly significant given the authority’s role and powers, as well as the nature and seriousness of the complaints it was called upon to examine.

Institutional independence

He said the independence and integrity of institutions should not be achieved by adapting their conclusions to courts of public opinion or the prevailing atmosphere.

Instead, he said, institutions must take a “brave and objective view of events” to avoid the contamination of the law, the tarnishing of names and the perception that the rule of law is being sacrificed for temporary popularity.

Report findings

Anastasiades said the authority’s report fell far short of expectations for an investigation of such scope and public interest.

He said that, rather than constituting conclusions reached by the anti-corruption authority following a thorough examination, the announcement was limited to references to the inspection officers’ findings, which he described as the product of “unforgivable negligence”.

He added that the serious accusations made by Drousiotis remained malicious allegations, arguing that they were either unsupported by testimony or refuted by evidence.

Right to be heard

Anastasiades also criticised what he described as the inspection officers’ failure to summon him or grant him the right to be heard regarding material which led to their conclusions and recommendations for possible criminal charges.

In June, following the publication of the report, he had criticised what he described as “smears” and “toxicity” from his detractors.