ATTORNEY-GENERAL Petros Clerides launched into open battle with the Supreme Court yesterday over his right to criticise the judiciary and his apparent lack of self control.
In an unprecedented public spat between the two institutions, the Attorney-general exchanged barbs with the Supreme Court after the latter criticised Clerides for “losing his self control” by publicly condemning a court decision to acquit ten policemen charged with beating two young students.
Clerides, who yesterday continued his assault on the judicial system by saying it was encouraging “state terrorism”, has from the start expressed his strong opposition to the Criminal Court’s decision to acquit the ten officers. While the decision was being read out, the AG stormed into the courtroom and demanded to pose a question; his intervention was rejected.
The court deemed disturbing video footage of the actual beating – publicised by the media when the incident took place in December 2005 – as unsubstantial evidence to prove the officers in question were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
“The Criminal Court’s decision is wrong, from start to finish, and unfortunately it has harmed the prestige of the judicial system irreversibly,” the AG said yesterday. “We can’t always trust court decisions; each civilian has the right to judge them for themselves.”
Even the President commented on the case on his return from Brussels last night, saying he was “saddened” by the outcome.
“I too was surprised on hearing the decision,” said President Demetris Christofias.
As a citizen, he reacted to the decision, which was “a provocation to the sense of justice of every citizen of the Republic”, he added.
However, Christofias stressed his respect as president for the independence of the judiciary and the courts.
Clerides, meanwhile, criticised the Court for its excuse that the media’s projection of the whole affair had prevented the officers from having a fair trial.
“In such a matter of importance and public interest, don’t the media have the right to show scenes and make comments?” he asked. “The media did their jobs well and not only did they have the right, they had an obligation to inform the public.”
Clerides said that with the exception of the judges, there was nobody in Cyprus who doubted the authenticity of the videotape. And even if it that was the case, why hadn’t the court accepted the testimonies of two experts and especially the testimonies of the students who fell victim to the brutal attack.
“Even the police torturers themselves positioned themselves at the scene at the time of the incident, by suing the plaintiffs, while the police had prosecuted the defendants,” he said.
Furthermore, Clerides condemned the Court for its “scornful behaviour” towards him and expressed his disappointment at the judges’ refusal to hear what he had to say.
“I will not accept such scornful behaviour from anyone,” said the AG. “I demand the courtrooms show the same respect to my person that I show to the judges.”
In response, the Supreme Court yesterday issued an announcement expressing its “shock and discontent at the infuriated and inappropriate statements of the Attorney-general to the media.”
Exercising criticism is generally accepted, it added, but the mass reaction to the court’s decision was that it was wrong, and that the policemen were guilty.
But the decision, said the Supreme Court, can be appealed and as indicated by the Cyprus Constitution, anyone being accused of a crime is innocent until proven guilty.
“The Attorney-general should be better aware of the fact that if he disagrees with a decision, the legal means he has at his disposal is to appeal, and not attack the courts and justice system through the television,” said the announcement, adding: “This action of his is obviously due to a loss of self control because of the outcome of the case and his failure to handle the situation with sobriety.”
It concluded: “The Supreme Court condemns without reservations the televised attempts to diminish the prestige of the judicial system, but specifies that is does not intend to comment further on the matter”.
Clerides returned fire, arguing that every citizen, especially the Attorney-general, had a right to express his views freely but that the Supreme Court did not have the necessary mentality to accept criticism.
He added that his sentiments reflected the truth and the sentiments of the overwhelming majority of the people.
The top legal officer referred to an English case where the judges had been accused of blindness. Questioning whether there was contempt of court, the English court ruled that the person may have been criticising the court but at the same time he was exercising his indisputable right to freedom of speech.
“This is the difference between the mentality above and that of our Supreme Court,” said Clerides in a stinging attack on the highest court in the land.
“The courts are not beyond judgement, whether it comes from an ordinary citizen or even more so the Attorney-general of the Republic,” said Clerides.
The Attorney-general hinted that success in any appeal was not guaranteed, noting that the reasons with which the Legal Service could appeal were limited as was the Supreme Court’s scope to intervene in the findings of a first court decision like that of the Criminal Court.
Ensuring the last word, Clerides said: “I respect the inability of the Supreme Court to enter into further public dialogue and so consider the matter closed.”
