ATTORNEY-general Solon Nikitas yesterday ruled that lifting DIKO deputy Marios Matsakis’ parliamentary immunity was justified to enable a full investigation into allegations that the MEP blackmailed a police officer.
Four days after the police handed over the case file containing the findings of their investigation, Nikitas issued his ruling: “It looks like the reasons are there to justify initiation of the procedure to lift the deputy’s immunity to enable full investigation of the case and possibly his prosecution,” a written statement said.
Speaking to CyBC on the deputy’s behalf, Matsakis’ lawyer Christos Clerides last night questioned why the Attorney-general’s office was not going ahead sooner with submitting its request to the Supreme Court to lift his client’s parliamentary immunity.
Clerides speculated that the delay in the procedure was related to the Attorney-general’s office dissatisfaction with the evidence gathered against the MEP.
Matsakis, who was yesterday in Britain, was unavailable for comment.
Meanwhile, Matsakis’ party, DIKO, said its political bureau would meet today to discuss the issue.
According to the party’s acting chairman, Nicos Kleanthous, Nikitas’ decision was a very serious development and his party’s political bureau and central office would meet to make some “serious decisions”. Up until now the party had washed its hands of any political responsibility in relation to the extortion allegations made against its MEP.
Matsakis has been accused of seeking £10,000 to help acquit a police officer involved in a manslaughter case.
The testimonies collected and submitted by the police in the framework of the investigation revealed criminal offences, the Attorney-general said.
Nikitas added it would not be advisable to go ahead with the procedure before the Supreme Court because until July 20, Matsakis would have double immunity as a member of the House and the European Parliament.
In light of this, Nikitas decided that it would not be productive to file a request with the Supreme Court earlier because “such an action would not, at the present stage, have any practical result as the possible lifting of his immunity as deputy of the Cyprus Parliament, he would continue to enjoy immunity as MEP”.
“This immunity is objectively impossible to lift before the commencement of the new European Parliament term on July 20, 2004,” Nikitas said.
As such, the Attorney-general plans to file a request with the president of the European Parliament immediately after the start of the term when the existing transitional provisions would have expired.
From then on the issue would be discussed by the relevant parliamentary committee and put to the vote before the plenum of the European Parliament.
Nikitas stressed that if for any reason Matsakis did not assume his duties as MEP and remained a deputy of the Cyprus Parliament, he would proceed immediately with his request to the Supreme Court.
The case file was handed over by the police on Friday.
It contained about 40 witness testimonies with 29 coming from police officers.
The story gained prominence three weeks ago when Politis published a police report detailing the meetings and conversations between Matsakis and the officer in question, who had been recording their conversations.
When police first began investigating the case in early April, Nikitas refused to start procedures for lifting Matsakis’ immunity, citing lack of evidence.
When the story entered the public arena, however, the case was re-examined and last week Nikitas gave the green light for investigations to start, though he stressed police could not question the MEP for the time being.
The Socialist party, EDEK, also issued a statement in response to the Attorney-general’s statement. It said although it stood by the legal term “innocent until proven guilty”, it could not disregard the MEP’s political responsibility for the hindrance suffered by the Cyprus government in European circles by submitting an application to lift his parliamentary immunity.
The statement said: “We are waiting for the adoption of decisions and measures to be taken which will minimise the negative consequences for the Cyprus Republic.”
