Our View: Black day for Cyprus? Michaelides’ actions led to his demise

It was inevitable that the decision by the Supreme Constitutional Council to sack Auditor-General Odysseas Michaelides for inappropriate conduct would be met with anger and suspicion by many people who venerated him for exposing some cases of corruption. And they will all subscribe to the narrative spun by Michaelides outside the court after the decision was read that “the system” had got him.

“It is clear to me that I had come into confrontation with the system and today the system achieved my beheading, presenting me as the worst state official since 1960,” said Michaelides, who wasted no time presenting himself as the victim of a corrupt establishment that wanted rid of him by any means. “The decision is a blow to freedom of speech in Cyprus; it is a black day for Cyprus,” he concluded.

In short, according to Michaelides, the eight judges who unanimously reached the decision that was based on concrete evidence were biased and corrupt, determined to get rid of an official who was fighting the corrupt system. There was no admission that he may have done some things wrong, that he may have overstepped the boundaries of his authority, that his conduct may have occasionally been inappropriate and unbecoming of a state official. His message, as always, was that he was infallible and morally unimpeachable – it was the judges who were wrong.

Yet the decision, which Michaelides’ supporters have viciously attacked, was based on overwhelming evidence of inappropriate conduct. These included the undermining of the rule of law by attacks on the attorney-general’s legal opinions, violation of the presumption of innocence by systematically accusing the deputy attorney-general of corruption, even after a state organ had acquitted him, regular resort to the dissemination of misleading information, the concealing of information that undermined his campaigns and interference in the administration of justice.

All this was fully corroborated in the decision, which led the court to conclude that “the conduct of Michaelides, as exhibited by misleading and improper public statements, with public baseless accusation and innuendo, violation of the presumption of innocence, lack of respect for the constitutional competences and authorities of the attorney-general and deputy attorney-general is reprehensible and below the standards and level of the office he serves.” Regarding the hounding of Angelides, the council said that “the referral – after his acquittal – to popular tribunals exhibits a person with dangerous understanding of the basic principles pertaining to the rule of law and the way institutions function.”

In the end, because of his popularity as a self-proclaimed crusader against corruption, Michaelides believed he was untouchable – that he could do exactly as he pleased, that there were no limits to his powers, that he could publicly disparage anyone he did not like and twist the truth for his own ends. His arrogance, lack of measure, lack of self-restraint, poor judgment, lack of objectivity, mentioned in the decision, and not a conspiracy by the establishment led to his demise.