DEPUTY Attorney-general Akis Papasavvas yesterday refused to answer any questions, when called by MPs to explain how he came to receive €17,000 from the state for dental implants.
Papasavvas – along with Attorney-general Petros Clerides – were invited to the House Watchdog Committee, which was trying to establish if public money had been squandered.
“We shouldn’t have been invited here as there are already three or four libel suits that are currently in the works, and what you are discussing will be discussed in court,” Papasavvas told the committee, referring to legal action against a number of media outlets.
DISY’s Ionas Nicolaou, Andreas Themistocleous and Stella Kyriakidou were clearly angered when Papasavvas added: “There are three or four MPs who are present today, who, if not daily, have very regularly expressed abusive views against me in the media and they continue today. I am referring to Mr Nicolaou, Mrs Kyriakidou and Mr Themistocleous.”
Even though Papasavvas refused to answer MPs’ questions, he made one sweeping statement: “I made a legitimate application to the ministry and I got a legitimate, in my view, response. Whatever has been said in the media, procedures are underway to deal with it.”
The Health Ministry’s former acting permanent secretary, Androulla Agrotou – the woman in charge of signing and approving Papasavvas’ application, who has since retired – was bombarded with questions.
It turned out that the legal procedures may not have necessarily been followed. Apart from documents that have gone missing from the file – for which an investigation has been launched by the ministry – it emerged that Agrotou should have sought the approval of the health minister before approving the full amount, though the regulations were a little fuzzy, the committee heard.
According to Health Minister Christos Patsalides, who was also present, applications for state-funded medical treatment are examined by a special team of doctors. If the treatment is not offered by the public sector, they will seek offers from the private sector and if it can’t be done in Cyprus, arrangements are made to send the patient abroad.
“As Health Minister, my main interest is that the procedures were followed independently of who applied,” said Patsalides. He added that applications were approved based on a doctor’s diagnosis. However, the diagnosis for Papasavvas’ treatment has not been found. The minister informed MPs that the investigating team had asked for another week.
Agrotou said she had acted on the advice of the special committee that examined Papasavvas’ application. “I state that I have followed all the legal procedures,” said Agrotou. “Once I received the advice of the special committee, I gave instructions for the application to be approved.”
However, she admitted that the minister had not been informed and that she had approved the application by herself, which is against regulations.
Agrotou said Papasavvas’ application, which was accompanied with the doctor’s assurances that he had undergone a complex procedure, was filed within two months as required by regulations, which was why she approved it.
She was then asked to explain how the deputy attorney-general received the entire amount and not part of it. “The entire amount was paid based on Chapter 13 of the relevant law, which lists that state officials that are entitled to the whole amount,” Agrotou said. “We examined whether the amount required by the doctor was within the appropriate frameworks, which it was.”
Speaking after the meeting, Committee Chairman, DISY’s George Georgiou, said the undoubted conclusion was that the necessary procedures had not been followed when approving Papasavvas’ treatment.
“It has been confirmed that the minister was not aware of the case, even though the law provides that he must be informed for such cases. The minister should have been the one to decide the amount that should have been given, which should only been given in part.”
Georgiou concluded that parliament would reconvene to discuss the procedures and find ways to update and improve the relevant legal framework.
