Withholding it is clearly an attempt to cover up collusion and corruption at the higher levels of our political institutions
The notorious Georghadjis List tells an incredible story. It is a tale of mockery and the political establishment’s contempt for the people. It is a story that makes me feel ashamed of my country because it is clearly an attempt to cover up collusion and corruption at the higher levels of our political institutions.
What is this famous Georghadjis List? I am told that it is a list of names of politically exposed persons which has been compiled by commercial banks and details their non-performing loans.
The Georghadjis List raises serious ethical questions. Apparently, it discloses numerous cases of politicians who, by taking advantage of their position, have secured preferential treatment and in certain cases managed to discharge their debts altogether.
These politicians are suspected of drafting and enacting laws on a ‘self-service’ basis, thus legalising their delinquent behaviour. These rumours were indirectly confirmed by the Al Jazeera video which highlighted how high-ranking politicians were prepared utilise their political positions for private benefit.
Under these circumstances, society demands the identification of those who have embezzled the trust and confidence of the voters. I honestly expected to see the healthy elements of the political establishment rushing to satisfy this legitimate public outcry and – more importantly – find a way to eject these rotten elements from the system.
Instead, a thousand-and-one pretexts were utilised to render it impossible to satisfy the public demand to publish the Georghadjis List and without any manipulation of its contents by those who seek to be judges and judged at the same time – two roles that coincide in the same person only in third-world countries and in absolute dictatorships.
What are the pretexts given for evading the disclosure of the list?
- The list includes insignificant amounts of debt which have already been settled. I ask you: are the public idiots and incapable of understanding that a paid-off petty debt does not constitute grounds for ostracising a politically active person?
- The list contains elements of non-performing loans that, based on the information provided by the persons affected, appear to be incorrect and therefore will unjustifiably harm their reputation. I ask you: what is the reason for not subjecting the explanations provided and the related documentation to the scrutiny of the people?
- The list is in need of updating because many particulars reported have since changed, for example, certain loans have been repaid or forgiven. I ask you: what is the reason for not publishing the list as is and then publishing a second updated list? It will be easy to spot the previously payable loans that have vanished.
- The list is complex and difficult to understand; it is “a haphazardly drafted mixed bag of information”, as the current president of the House of Representatives vividly described it. I ask you: who assessed the list and on what basis were these conclusions reached? Why should we not give the opportunity to all those on the list who claim to have been unfairly treated to publish explanations and provide supporting evidence to prove their innocence?
What do we need to do?
My proposal is to immediately post the celebrated Georghadjis List on the website of the House of Representatives and to allow every person cited to provide their own explanations. This is what transparency demands. This is the only way we can bring about catharsis and restore the lost confidence in state institutions.
In a recent television interview, the House president referred to a joint opinion on the issue secured from lawyers Andreas Angelides, Achilleas Emilianides and Chris Triantafyllides and certain personal lawyer-friends of his whose identities were not disclosed. I understood that they all supported not publishing the list. He also referred to two letters received – one from a member of the House, the other from a senior civil servant, whose identity he also refused to disclose – in which they warned him that publishing the list would lead to legal action against Parliament. He added that it would not be correct to burden the taxpayers with the compensation that the House of Representatives will be called upon to pay.
I am shocked that the House appears to support such a rejection of a perfectly legitimate universal demand with such ease and through such opaque procedures. I do not know on what basis the House president’s friends have given their advice, nor do I know on what basis the politically exposed persons cited in the Georghadjis list have substantiated their “warnings”.
I can, however, say that my reading of the law is different to that of the three learned lawyers. To start with, the House resolution to publish the Georghadjis List when it was first passed unanimously last July did not have, nor is it going to have now if reconfirmed, a regulatory character and therefore would not require a legislative act to become effective. This is a hollow argument advanced by the former House president, who has recently resigned his position, in an effort to avoid publication of the list – a goal that was attained at the time. A resolution to publish the list is a political decision which endorses publishing information that concerns politically exposed persons. It aims at serving the supreme national interest of reinforcing the public’s trust in the legislative, the executive and the judicial arms of the state. Would a unanimous resolution from the House to allocate MPs’ 13th salaries to cover the Christmas needs of poor families need to be published in the official Government Gazette?
It is with regret that I have noted that in our country, EU legislation protecting personal data has been misused and continues to be misused for covering up corruption and collusion, as is the case with the statements of wealth of the politically exposed persons.
I plead with our MPs to summon the necessary courage and to unanimously put an end to the smearing of politically exposed persons and the humiliation of our country, which was recently presented by Al Jazeera television as a den of corruption and collusion.
Christos Panayiotides is a regular columnist for the Cyprus Mail, Sunday Mail and Alithia
