As the Odysseas Michaelides case makes perfectly clear
By Loukis Skaliotis
The decision of the Cyprus Supreme Constitutional Court to remove the auditor-general from his post has been at the forefront of the news in recent days. The decision has been seized upon by both the supporters and opponents of Odysseas Michaelides, with an attempt to justify their strong held beliefs. For his supporters this was another example of the Deep State trying to silence people that fight against it, and for his opponents this was confirmation that Odysseas Michaelides had overstepped his mark and was acting as a lone anti-corruption vigilante.
The unanimous decision of the court does not leave much room for a subjective argumentation for the merits of the case. It is ironic that the blind adherence to rules and regulations that Odysseas himself espoused in the pursuit of his audits has come to bite him. This respect for the rule of law is what most of my lawyer friends, and not only them, are repeating ad nauseam as they justify the correctness of the Supreme Constitutional Court decision.
Yet, respect for the decision and the rule of law does not automatically mean that justice has been served. No objective outsider can claim that the behaviour of Odysseas was not erratic at times, filled with visions of grandeur and self-importance and plainly rude and petty on occasion. The argument sometimes expressed, that this behaviour was necessary if he was to achieve his aim in carrying out the corruption investigations effectively, simply does not wash. Yet at the same time no objective outsider can claim that Odysseas has not brought to light many instances of corruption and/or mismanagement by the state, some of them of huge significance.
Nor can any objective outsider deny that the perception held by the public that the attempt to remove Odysseas from his post has come mostly because of the reaction of the Deep State to his success in bringing to light these practices, rather than any concern about his ill-suited character.
And this is where the essence of the matter lies. It is imperative and fair that as part of the checks and balances of a well-structured system of governance, everybody should be subject to some sort of independent and objective supervision in the carrying of their duties. (The president and the attorney-general should also be subject to this, but this is a matter for another day. In the US, the president can be impeached).
The auditor-general according to our constitution can be removed if the Supreme Court so decides following an application by the attorney-general. It is not the president but the attorney-general that makes the application, and this is not there by accident. The reasoning for that, presumably, is that the president cannot be considered as an objective and independent outsider – as the constitution rightly saw there could be a conflict of interest between the executive branch and the auditor-general.
Yet, in the present circumstances one is hardly able to argue that the attorney-general himself is an objective and independent outsider in making the decision to bring the case before the Supreme Constitutional Court, especially as the attorney-general himself was the subject of some of Odysseas’ concerns.
This is hugely important because the way the case has been presented – the 15 points – focuses solely on the negative behaviour of Odysseas while disregarding the positive aspects of his character in bringing about consequential audits. For the judges therefore, whose one and only objective, is the application of the letter of the law, the decision was a one-way street. One that was carefully orchestrated by the attorney-general with the objective of safeguarding his position.
Nor were there available to the court any other remedies, such as a reprimand, which is normally the first step in cases where a company examines the dismissal of an employee and is considered a fair approach especially where there are mitigating circumstances.
Of course, the whole matter could have been handled differently had the president of the Republic made a serious effort to reach an understanding between the attorney-general and the auditor-general. Such a sincere attempt was unlikely to materialise under the current president who is very pleased to see the back of Odysseas for his own reasons.
His concern for the fight against corruption is evidently superficial, if there at all, nor does he appear concerned that the continuing mistrust of the public in government institutions (that the case of Odysseas will surely fuel further), can only damage the well-functioning of the state.
I will only highlight another instance where the conflict between two important institutions (the then President Demetris Christofias and the Central Bank governor Athanasios Orphanides) in 2011-2013 led to catastrophic results for Cyprus. Even though Christofias also managed eventually to get rid of Orphanides (by not reappointing him at the end of his term) the problems did not go away.
In conclusion, even though the decision of the Supreme Constitutional Court could be legally correct – they are of course not infallible as the Thanasis case amply demonstrated – this does not mean that justice has been served by a long shot.
If only my lawyer friends could only distance themselves a bit from their legal bubble, they could surely manage to see the bigger picture.
Loukis Skaliotis is an economist
