We have always had a rather ambiguous approach to the rule of law, which was evident once again after the Supreme Constitutional Court’s decision to remove Odysseas Michaelides from the post of auditor-general on Wednesday. Taking the cue from Michaelides, his supporters dismissed the unanimous decision, which few bothered to read, as a “victory of the system and a defeat of the fight against corruption.” This was a metaphorical interpretation far removed from the facts on which the reading of the law depends.
It was an emotional reaction, similar to the way football fans respond to a defeat of the team they support, claiming, without real evidence, the referee was biased and the opposing team’s players cheated. We were told that the law had been deviously used by the “deep state”, for which the judges, allegedly, were working, “to silence” Michaelides who also stated the decision was a “blow to freedom of expression.” Should the court have safeguarded the right of the auditor-general to systematically accuse the attorney-general and the deputy attorney-general of corruption and publicly slander individuals in the name of free speech? Should the court have protected his systematic violation of the presumption of innocence?
People were obviously upset by the decision as they had a very high regard for the former auditor-general, but in a democracy we have to accept that there is rule of law, protection of people’s rights and separation of powers. Criticising President Nikos Christodoulides for not stopping the attorney-general from applying for the termination of Michaelides’ service was irrational as the attorney-general, like the auditor-general, is an independent state official. If the president had attempted to give orders to the auditor-general about the way he carried out his duties, Michaelides would have been up in arms, reporting him to international organisations and accusing him of threatening the independence of the institution. And he would have had the full support of Akel, which is currently criticising Christodoulides for failing to interfere in the work of the attorney-general and stopping the case against Michaelides.
This is indicative of our strange approach to rule of law and constitutional order. We seem to want these fundamental principles of a liberal democracy applied selectively. We approve of the constitution safeguarding the independence of the auditor-general but in the case of the attorney-general we want this constitutional provision of independence violated because it does not serve our purposes, and we do not like the person who is in this position. We want fair and unbiased judges but when they take a decision we do not like we label them corrupt.
Everyone has the right to criticise the Supreme Constitutional Court’s decision and express strong disagreement with it but to attribute sinister ulterior motives to the eight judges who heard the case and allege that the judiciary is not an independent institution of the state but one that conspires with the executive to penalise the enemies of the corrupt system is plainly wrong and dangerous. It undermines the legitimacy of the state, the judiciary and constitutional order, based on the absurd assumption that everyone exercising state power is corrupt. That none of this can be substantiated seems irrelevant.
Parties like Akel are irresponsibly adding oil to the fire by attempting to politically exploit the unrest. It has decided to treat the decision as a grave miscarriage of justice and is holding a demonstration outside the presidential palace on Sunday to protest against “institutional graft and corruption;” Edek has also decided to take part. Akel chief Stefanos Stefanou said “the system of institutional corruption exposes our country internationally, sows suspicion among society and downgrades the rule of law.” It did not occur to him that what really downgrades the rule of law – in fact, makes a complete mockery of it – is claiming that supreme court judges are corrupt, disregarding the separation of powers and suggesting a state official should be untouchable by the law.
We cannot pick and choose the aspects of the rule of law we want. Either there is rule of law or there is not. The political parties have a responsibility to ensure there is instead of rousing the public against the judiciary and the president because the court took a decision that was unpopular. Respect for the law and the constitution cannot be selective. It is a case of all or nothing, something we seem to have great difficulty accepting.
