It came as something of a surprise that President Nikos Christodoulides refused to sign the amendment to the law governing the Social Support Agency and referred it to the Supreme Constitutional Court. One of his oft-repeated election pledges was ‘transparency and accountability’ but this decision would indicate a large gap between his words and deeds. Even the five reasons put forward by the attorney-general to annul the amendment of the law are arguments against transparency, based on a particular reading of constitutional provisions.
The Social Support Agency is a private fund run by a committee chaired by the wife of the president that gives money to needy students to cover their tuition fees and rent. It was set up in 2014 by Andri Anastasiades when Cyprus was deep in recession and by 2023 it had raised €4.2m. With the change of president, it was taken over by Philippa Karsera-Christodoulides, who in the nine months until the end of last year had raised €2.2m. Of the €6.4m raised in the last 10 years, €4.6m was spent on supporting some 3,700 students. Why the fund has been kept going long after the years of recession were over is unclear.
The Social Support Agency operated under a shroud of secrecy, only the presidential palace knowing who the contributors were. When the legislature was discussing the amendment of the law, by which the names of all individuals and businesses contributing more than €5,000 would have to be made public at the end of each year, Karsera-Christodoulides argued that the anonymity of the donors should be safeguarded otherwise they would stop making donations. It was a poor argument that fueled deputies’ suspicions of dubious dealings, which may have not existed. She also questioned why she was being targeted, considering there was no transparency in the nine years Andri Anastasiades was running the fund.
The main argument against the amended law used by the AG was that it violated personal data and the right to privacy, pointing out in charity organisations the consent of the donor is needed before a name is released; also an individual had the right not to make public details about personal expenses. What these arguments ignore is that the Social Support Agency is not a normal charity but a fund made up of private donations that was used by the president’s wife. Was there not a possibility that donations were made to the Agency in the hope of winning presidential favour? The only way to ensure against this happening is through transparency, even if it diminishes the amount of funds that can be raised.
Is the president willing to sacrifice transparency so that the fund-raising can be boosted? Does he not recognise the political and moral issues raised by taking secret donations, even if for a worthy cause? There is another point of order that nobody mentioned. Karsera-Christodoulides is a working civil servant, who cannot be taking secret donations from individuals and distributing funds as she sees fit. This is completely out of order.
The real issue, however, is transparency. If the political parties are obliged to disclose the names of their donors for the sake of transparency so should the presidential palace. This is a political issue and not a legal issue as the president seems to think.
