anti-corruption authority — anti-corruption authority — A public disagreement has emerged between the Attorney General’s office and Cyprus’s Independent Authority against Corruption following parliamentary testimony regarding the decision not to pursue corruption investigations.
During a House session on Wednesday, Attorney General Giorgos Savvides openly challenged statements made by the Independent Authority against Corruption. This prompted the watchdog body to clarify its caseload and investigative procedures, highlighting the ongoing tension between the two entities.
Anti-corruption authority: Concerns Raised in Parliamentary Testimony
The controversy stemmed from remarks by Authority representative Makis Konstantinides, who addressed the House Institutions Committee. He referenced the European Commission’s 2025 Rule of Law Report for Cyprus, which pointed out that the Attorney General’s Office had not taken action on several high-profile corruption cases.
Details of Complaints Processed
Since its establishment, the Independent Authority has processed a total of 535 complaints as of 31 August 2025, having completed examinations of 273 cases. The Authority defines “completed examination” as instances where cases were either rejected during preliminary review due to lack of jurisdiction or insufficient evidence, or where investigations concluded without establishing corruption.
Of those examined, fourteen complaints have undergone a full investigation, yielding varying outcomes: six investigations found no corruption, two have recently concluded and are awaiting Authority review, four are in the report-writing stage, and two remain ongoing.
Witness Cooperation and Prosecution Dispute
In a related development, the Authority confirmed Attorney General Savvides’s assertion that no corruption cases were forwarded to his office. However, a separate disagreement arose regarding the requirements for witness cooperation during investigations.
During three parallel investigations, the Authority identified violations of legislation mandating that witnesses answer all questions posed to them. Although no corruption was found, the Authority requested criminal prosecution of an individual for failing to cooperate fully with the investigations.
Attorney General Savvides disagreed with the Authority’s perspective on this matter, leading to a public statement that documented the ongoing disagreement. In light of the recorded contention, the Authority has since stated that it now considers the matter closed.
