INSIDE the barriers put up around Solomou Square, on the edge of the dug-up building site, the only thing that has been left standing in what used to be Nicosia’s central bus terminal, is a kiosk.
This kiosk was set up on the pavement more than 20 years ago, and the original owner was allowed to operate because of his links with the association for the blind. When the current operator took it over, legal action to have it removed was taken by the Nicosia Municipality but it was unsuccessful. Now, the kiosk is delaying the construction work, scheduled to finish in October, which could mean more traffic misery and a higher cost for the taxpayer.
The inability of the municipality to secure a court order and have the shabby kiosk demolished is a damning indictment of our justice system, which appears to offer protection to law-breakers. The municipality tried in the past to have the kiosk removed, but the court ruled that it had no authority to do so as the kiosk was built on the pavement, which was state property, and only the central government could take action against the man operating it. When the building work began the operator secured a court order preventing the municipality from demolishing the kiosk, as it had no authority to do so. Only the government could secure a demolition order, something which has led to two ministries passing the responsibility to each other and neither taking action.
It is the court ruling that defies belief. How could the court protect a business that came into being through the violation of laws? If the current operator had no permits for the kiosk surely its location should not have been an issue. Is an illegality on state property acceptable so long as the ministry in charge does not seek a remedy? Or did the judges issue a ruling based on legal technicalities rather than the spirit of the law?
Interestingly, one of the reasons the operator of the kiosk stayed put is because he is not entitled to alterative premises once the project is completed. Another two kiosks in the square had agreements with the municipality, allowing them to re-open when the project is completed, but the third kiosk has no such a contract, because its legal owner is not the operator of the kiosk.
The municipal authorities may have a small share of the blame for not taking a tough line 18 years ago, but we would have expected the court to have resolved the dispute in the sensible way, instead of allowing one man to take the authorities for a ride, and threatening a big public project that would serve the community.
