No institution or authority of the Republic, except the Pancyprian Bar Association, is conducting an investigation into the Pandora Papers

 

Statement by AKEL MP Andreas Pasiourtides after the meeting of the Parliamentary Committee on Institutions

What is the exact relationship between the President of the Republic and the law firm bearing his name?

27 October 2021, AKEL C.C. Press Office, Nicosia

We discussed the Pandora Papers issue today in the Committee on Institutions. I want to start by saying that the Director of the Office of the President of the Republic in an unacceptable statement, vehemently attacking AKEL, has said that no one invited the Presidency to express a position. To his credit, the President of the Committee on Institutions, speaking on behalf of the entire Committee, described the statement by the Director of the Office of the President of the Republic as unfortunate and offensive, which in fact leaves both the Committee on Institutions and the President of the Republic personally exposed as President of the Committee.

We need to make a few things clear, which everyone should be aware of. The Committee on Institutional Affairs, like every other Parliamentary Committee, has neither powers to carry out investigations, nor the power to investigate any possible criminal offences. I mention this because many people expect a conclusion from the Committee on Institutional Affairs, whereas it doesn’t have such power. The Committee on Institutions, but also every MP and every Parliamentary Committee, in the exercise of parliamentary scrutiny, can scrutinize shortcomings and weaknesses in the legislative and regulatory framework on any issue and consequently legislative initiatives can be taken, either by MP’s or by the executive power.

But the main duty of Parliament is to exercise parliamentary scrutiny also over the political aspect of this, i.e. to check for any conflicts of interest, erroneous political practices, practices that border on the morally and politically unacceptable by political and state officials, as well as to exercise control over the executive power as to whether it is performing its duties effectively and in a manner consistent with modern democratic states.

With regards the substance of today’s debate, it has been reported to us that at the moment only the Cyprus Bar Association, which is the competent supervisory authority, is conducting an investigation into the law firm bearing the name of the President of the Republic, Mr. Nikos Anastasiades. No other institution or agency of the state is carrying out an investigation, following the publication of the Pandora Papers. The Pancyprian Bar Association said that if the law firm in question cooperates, this investigation can be over in 15 days. We will expect the full cooperation of the law firm bearing the name of the President so that the investigation of the Pancyprian Bar Association can be concluded as soon as possible.

Something that has been said many times in recent days is that nothing irregular/unlawful has emerged about the President of the Republic with regard to the Pandora Papers, and that the press reports themselves say so. Even if we were to examine the issue from its legal aspect, it has been clarified today, during the debate, that the law firms had specific legal obligations during the period we are examining and Mr. Lebedev was being investigated for money laundering, so we will wait to see whether there were any illegalities or irregularities or whether the laws and regulations that were required were not followed by the law firm that bears the name of President Anastasiades.

Something else that is being strongly heard is that the Republic of Cyprus, or rather the current government, took many measures, as government officials stress to us on every occasion, to combat tax evasion, tax avoidance and money laundering. It is worth mentioning at this point that the adoption of the law on final beneficiaries of companies, which was made in 2021 and is a harmonization with a European directive, was delayed by 2.5 years based on the recommendations of the EU and came to Parliament nine months after the deadline and after a recommendation was sent to us by the EU.

For that reason, the actions that this government boasts that it did, not only were not due to its own initiatives, but instead recommendations of the European institutions and harmonisation with European legislation, but in addition in this case it delayed 2.5 years to bring this legislation to Parliament for approval.

Finally, the most essential point from this debate must be highlighted, which is none other than what is the exact relationship between the President of the Republic and the law firm that bears his name, and the fact that it is clear that the conflict of interest that exists is self-evident and does not need any investigation by any competent authority and by any independent institution to point it out.