For years, they’ve been “filing” away on Odysseas Michaelides over at the Attorney General’s Office. Everything he did and said was put into folders, waiting for enough to present to the court.
Of course, we wish they had put the same diligent work into all the cases they handle. I just wonder how many taxpayers were paying for this job while they told us they were short-staffed and that’s why cases were delayed. Anyway, that’s another issue.
The essence is that reading what has come into our hands (most of which will be heard in court) from the content of the Attorney General’s application for the removal of the Auditor General, what we understand is that the application is not based on evidence proving that the Auditor General is incapable of performing his duties.
Of course, we can’t read the minds of the judges, but common sense dictates that what is mentioned in the files does not concern his incompetence as the Auditor General, but his opinions as Odysseas Michaelides. We may be wrong, but almost all the references and the Attorney General’s arguments concern his public statements, the expression of his opinions, on various cases that come to light, or even his public disagreements with the Attorney General’s rulings.
However, if this is the case, what the Court must answer is whether Odysseas Michaelides’ public statements/complaints harm the public interest. Because that is what concerns the State and Society, not whether it damages the credibility of the Attorney General or anyone else. This is often referred to in the argumentation.
For example, the Auditor General made a report on teleworking for administrative staff at the University of Cyprus and believed that it gave rise to criminal offences, as it referred to staff whose duties, by their nature, could not be “teleworked.” The Attorney General decided that there were no criminal offences. However, the Auditor General insisted on his positions in public statements.
In his submission to the court, George Savvides raises this issue, noting that the Auditor General’s positions “attempt to discredit an institution that enjoys deep respect from civil society and therefore harm the public interest,” as we read in the relevant report. So, what’s the issue? Is the Prosecutor competent to protect the reputation of the University? The essence is that the Prosecutor’s decision that there are no criminal offences prevails and is implemented.
The fact that the Auditor General disagrees and publicly expresses his opinion is merely his opinion. It did not force the Attorney General to change his decision and proceed with criminal prosecutions.
As with the infamous multiple pensions. The Auditor General called on the Accountant General to immediately terminate the payment of illegal pensions. But the Accountant General did not do so, based on rulings by the Attorney General. Then the Auditor General issued a statement arguing that “the Attorney General of the Republic advises the Treasurer of the Republic to violate the law and make payments contrary to it,” and “if the administration believed that the law is unconstitutional, it should have promoted its amendment or repeal. The rule of law is obviously threatened.”
The decision that stands is the decision of the Attorney General; it was not shaken by the Auditor General’s disagreement.
But the Auditor General’s view is that the rule of law is threatened. Is he not entitled to voice his view?
I repeat, then: The issue is that Odysseas should not disagree, should not speak publicly, should not influence public opinion, and generally should not meddle in their feet when they make decisions. This is evident from many references to the issues presented in court. In particular, however, one of these references is that “the Auditor General enjoys using social media” and engages with posts on social media platform “X” (formerly “Twitter”) and expresses views on matters beyond his competencies. Can this be considered “inappropriate behaviour” in today’s day and age?
Read more:
