Legal experts weighed in on Thursday over the decision to fire Odysseas Michaelides as auditor-general, calling it a landmark case that will inevitably be discussed for years.
Lawyer Achilleas Emilianides said the decision left “very serious accusations” against Michaelides that had nothing positive about him to say whatsoever.
If anyone outside of the country read the decision, they would draw the conclusion that Michaelides “is one of the worst officials ever,” which is a rather crushing judgement for the work he carried out in the past ten years, Emilianides added.
Chairman of the bar association Michalis Vorkas told Sigma that few expected this decision to take on the dimensions it did and the scale to which every allegation was examined.
“It is a landmark ruling for Cypriot justice that touches on sensitive matters that deal with institutions and powers of independent officials of the state, giving a detailed guidance on how they should conduct themselves.”
He underlined the decision should be a cause for reflection and an opportunity for everyone to realise that living under a rule of law, great care should be exercised on the way individuals behave, even in good faith, without realising they are crossing the line.
“Court assessed the legal aspect of the case and using the material, concluded that in the case of the auditor-general, all facts were there that allowed it to reach this decision.”
Vorkas said that with all due respect to the auditor-general, all officials, and MPs should be very careful in the way they treat the case.
“We cannot degrade the Supreme Court or the judiciary because this will lead us to chaos and jungle.”
Emilianides said the decision would undoubtedly be discussed for several years “given that it is an important decision of historical importance, which concerns a popular auditor-general, who is considered by a large part of society to have had a significant positive impact and to have changed the image of the audit office.”
Though Michaelides is a popular figure, court’s decision made it clear that the judges were not concerned with his popularity but whether he exhibited improper conduct based on the testimony, he added.
Emilianides specified that Michaelides does have a window of opportunity to appeal the decision to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
The former auditor-general left the possibility open, however Emilianides said the ECHR would not examine the substance of the case, but whether there has been a violation of human rights.
“It will rule exclusively in the sphere of whether there was a human rights violation and not for a review of the whole case”.
Former head of the bar association Doros Ioannides said the message sent out by this ruling is that any independent official appointed “should serve their position and not have the position serve them. This is the big difference.”
He noted that it was not Michaelides’ work that it assessed but his reactions.
Lawyer Elias Stephanou underlined in a Sigma interview that the ruling specified the auditor-general should have been careful and discreet, to contain his views and not clash with any individual that disagreed with his positions.
It is one thing to challenge or try to change a decision by writing a letter to the competent body, and it is another thing to make the case in the media that even if a decision has been made, it is still wrong, he added.
