THE BLUNDER-PRONE health minister Dina Akkelidou has landed herself in a big mess yet again but this time she cannot shift the blame to her subordinates. Her latest gaffe, which some lawyers have described as a possible criminal offence, came with her signature, on government stationery, marked ‘confidential’. Ms Akkelidou had no choice but to own up to her blunder but tried to play it down by pleading ignorance.
How could a minister plead ignorance about one of the most basic ideas of government – the separation of powers? If she does not know that the executive has no authority to interfere in the work of the judiciary, she does not have the rudimentary understanding of government required for anyone to be a minister. What she did was not an omission or an oversight, but a blatant attempt to influence a decision by a judge, which is criminal offence.
The minister had written to a Larnaca district court judge, with reference to the trial of a man charged with importing, trafficking and possessing ‘class A’ narcotic substances. In her letter she mentioned that the accused had successfully gone through a detox programme, had found employment and was now returning on a rehabilitation scheme. She also attached a letter from a psychiatrist, who argued that it would be disastrous to give the accused a custodial sentence. The court issued an announcement saying that the contents of the letter would be ignored.
The government has tried to play down the whole matter, while admitting that Ms Akkelidou had followed the mistaken procedure. There was no bad intent or any intention of interfering in the course of justice, insisted the government spokesman, rather unconvincingly. Why had the letter been sent if there was no intention to influence the judge’s decision and why had a psychiatric report been attached? And why had the judge made such a fuss about the letter if the whole issue was as trivial as the spokesman tried to make out?
The government’s stand raises a very important question, relating to the implementation of the law and equality before the law. Had an ordinary citizen tried to influence the judge’s decision – a criminal offence — would the Attorney-general not have brought charges against him or her? So why is the minister treated differently from an ordinary citizen by the Attorney-general? This makes a mockery of the principle of equality before the law. And if there is the rule of law, why is this law selectively implemented?
Surely the Attorney-general’s office should investigate the possibility of bringing charges instead of pretending that nothing happened. The president might not care if one of his ministers behaves in an inappropriate way, but the Attorney-general of a state in which there is rule of law cannot turn a blind eye to actions that brazenly undermine this very principle.
