IT IS not very often that the party leaders see eye to eye on any issue of public importance. Yet the commendably resolute stance taken by Attorney-general Solon Nikitas on the issue of presidential pardons to prisoners at Christmas has united them. All have savagely criticised Nikitas and some have gone as far as to demand his resignation because he had blocked the granting of some 100 pardons by the president.
The practice has become something of a Christmas tradition. The previous president exercised this prerogative every year, on the grounds that the early release of prisoners eased the problem of chronic overcrowding at Nicosia Central Prison. In fact, the then opposition party AKEL repeatedly accused former president Glafcos Clerides of abusing this prerogative – it even went as far as to blame rising crime on the excessive number of presidential pardons. Ironically, AKEL and its leader are now the most outspoken critics of Nikitas’ decision and have been calling for his resignation.
Could this be because the granting of presidential pardons has become just another political racket, of the variety that thrives in Cyprus? There is a sneaking suspicion that the ever-resourceful political parties see presidential pardons as yet another tool for winning votes – another area in which to exercise favouritism towards current or future supporters. DISY supporting prisoners presumably benefited from this practice during the Clerides presidency, while now that AKEL is in power it also wants to get in on pardons racket, irrespective of its past objections.
Party hypocrisy does not end here. These very same parties, given half an opportunity, pay lip service to the need for the Attorney-general to act as an independent state official who ignores political pressure in reaching decisions. But as soon as Nikitas acted as a truly independent state official, whose only concern was the implementation of the law, the political parties began demanding his resignation. Surely they should have praised his refusal to give in to political pressure, even if they considered his decision on the pardons issue to be mistaken.
The truth is that party leaders cannot tolerate or respect an independent Attorney-general who ignores their diktats and bases his decisions, quite rightly, on the strict letter of the law. An Attorney-general who does things according to the book means less influence and power for the politicians who are notorious for behaving as if they were above the law. The fact that they have all been calling for the resignation of Nikitas is indicative of their lack of respect for the law and of the institution of the Attorney-general, which they seem to think is there to issue politically expedient decisions.
Politicians have shown time and again that, for them, the law is something totally pliable that can be bent completely out of shape when the political need arises. Nikitas, to his credit, does not share this perverse view about the law, which is why his decision to block the granting of pardons has sparked universal condemnation from the party leaders and calls for his resignation. Yet, for anyone who cares about the rule of law and the safeguarding of our institutions, Nikitas’ total independence from the politicians (including the president), obdurate adherence to the enforcement of the law and refusal to bow to political pressure must be welcomed. Surely this is how an Attorney-general should behave, regardless of the merits of his decision.
