MPs on Wednesday were incandescent over President Nikos Christodoulides’ decision to veto a law which would disclose the names of donors to the ‘social support body’, a fund for students from disadvantaged backgrounds managed by First Lady Philippa Karsera.
House ethics committee chairman and Disy MP Demetris Demetriou was the first to express his distaste at the move, saying the government has embarked on a “trend of limiting parliament’s sovereignty”.
He added that Christodoulides has “raised the issue of the separation of powers” and tried to “limit the scope of what an MP can legislate”, before going on to describe the move as “extremely dangerous”.
He also moved to rubbish government spokesman Konstantinos Letymbiotis’ earlier claim that parliament is provided with the fund’s accounts, saying parliament has in fact not received any record of donors to the fund since 2016, eight years ago.
He then once again described Christodoulides’ veto of the law as “sad and dangerous”.
“What [Christodoulides] says about transparency and accountability is not true and beyond belief. He wants to unnerve parliament. If they dream of a parliament which simply validates the executive, they can forget it. Parliament has a role and will carry it out to the fullest extent,” he said.
Fellow Disy MP Nikos Georgiou said the government “is not able to read and understand” the law, and then accused the government of “deception”, before adding, “it is a serious matter”.
Akel MP Irene Charalambides said she was “surprised by the fact that the government and others cannot understand the problem and why parliament has legislated to solve it”.
“In the past, we experienced situations where contributions were made to the fund in exchange for golden passports. Transparency in this place, in every act which is carried out, whoever does it, is non-negotiable. Why should someone be ashamed that they gave more than €5,000 to the social support body?” she asked.
Volt MP Alexandra Attalides said the matter “concerns the Republic itself and is a matter of transparency”.
“This effort is being made to show that [Christodouldes] and his wife care about the world. Hiding those who make donations with a veil of darkness is something which happens in third world countries,” she added.
She then said that if the Supreme Constitutional Court decides that the names of the donors to the social support body need not be publicly disclosed, “that will mean political parties will also have the right to not publish the names of their financiers”.
“It is a shame that a president who advocated for new morals in politics, for transparency and accountability, now does not want accountability. There is a bad precedent being set here,” she said.
On the other hand, Dipa MP Marinos Mousiouttas said he “does not understand” why Christodoulides’ referring of the law to the Supreme Constitutional Court “is so disturbing”.
The ‘social support body’ was first established in 2014 and placed under the wing of then-first lady Andri Anastasiades, before being passed on to Philippa Karsera Christodoulides when her husband became president last year.
The current first lady had twice appeared at the House ethics committee to discuss the bill. In opposing the proposed disclosures, she argued that publicly disclosing the list of donors would in fact discourage some potential donors from participating.
Some MPs had on this point argued that donors, especially large corporations, would be more than glad to advertise their charity, while other critics had suggested that the fund could be abused as a vehicle for vote harvesting during election periods.
MPs then unanimously passed a law which would have forced all donors, individuals or corporations, which had donated €5,000 or more to be publicly named, with the stated purpose of boosting transparency.
Christodoulides’ subsequent veto of the law and referral thereof to the Supreme Constitutional Court created significant blowback, but Letymbiotis earlier this week condemned “attempts to politicise” the move.
Letymbiotis described Christodoulides as “the guardian of the constitution” and said he had been advised to send the law to the Supreme Constitutional Court on the advice of the legal service, which had flagged “possible unconstitutional provisions”.
He said Christodoulides’ decision had been “based on the obligation and responsibility arising from his office”, and that the Supreme Constitutional Court will now make a ruling, which will “be fully respected”.
Additionally, he said, “the deliberate reference to ‘the president’s wife’s fund’ is offensive.”
