THIS column, in the past, has been critical of Attorney-general, Solon Nikitas, for his refusal to acquiesce to the modernisation of the antiquated law of evidence. Today, I feel obliged to praise him and also to pose a challenge. He deserves praise for the courageous way in which he handled the concerted attacks by political parties – particularly AKEL and the president himself – over his decision to block the granting of presidential pardons to some 200 inmates of Nicosia Central Prisons.
It is only fair to applaud his brave stance as well as his refusal to give in to the wishes of the politicians, motivated by the customary ruthless populism. Even if he had made an error of judgment, the fact that he chose to stick to a position that he considered to be right, irrespective of whether this would bring him in direct confrontation with the president who appointed him and party leaders, shows courage and dignity. These qualities are rarely exhibited by state officials who are invariably servile and obsequious towards the political leaders. With his stance, Nikitas set new standards of public behaviour, giving a practical illustration of the independent way in which the Attorney-general should act.
As regards the substance of the dispute, it all comes down to common sense. The disputed article of the constitution [53(4)] says: “In the case of sentences other than the death sentence, the President and Vice-President reduce, suspend or convert any sentence imposed by any court in the Republic, on the agreement of the Attorney-general of the Republic and the deputy Attorney-general of the Republic.”
From reading this and the previous three paragraphs, referring to the death sentence, it is abundantly clear that the people who wrote the constitution had in mind the granting of pardons only in exceptional cases. For instance a convict who had been in prison for 10 years and had a terminal illness would be eligible for a pardon so as to spend his last days with his family. And it would be sensible to grant a pardon in such a case. But it would be irrational to think that the objective of the constitution was to give the president the authority to release a few hundred prisoners, some months before they had served their sentence, on the pretext of a religious day. This would lead to the mass release of prisoners two or three times a year (Christmas, Easter, Bayram) and would make a complete mockery of the meaning of justice.
We have witnessed such a mockery in the past. One of Nikitas’ predecessors, on one occasion, amended the criteria for granting pardons so that a prisoner, who had another seven months of his sentence to serve, could be released.
Those who drafted the constitution tried to ensure against abuse of this presidential prerogative, which was why two controls were included – the agreement of the Attorney-general and the deputy Attorney-general. In reality, the right to issue a pardon is not a presidential prerogative, but a procedure for resolving exceptional cases. It was therefore absurd to claim that the president had been denied the right to use his prerogative. Even more absurd was the contention of my friend Ionas Nicolaou, the DISY deputy, that there had been a violation of the constitution.
Others, quite ludicrously, criticised Nikitas for ignoring the view of his deputy. As the constitution required the agreement of both the Attorney-general and his deputy, what would be the point of seeking the opinion of the latter, when the former’s disagreement was enough to stop the pardoning procedure?
Now, a challenge for the Attorney-general. On November 14, 2002, the then Attorney-general, Alecos Markides, sent a letter to a Yugoslav citizen living in Cyprus, which among other things said:
“I refer to your letter, dated 1/11/2002, the content of which has been duly noted, and inform you that, after careful consideration of all the relevant material in my possession, I have given instructions to the Chief of Police to initiate a criminal investigation with regard to your allegations.” The Yugoslav’s allegations were in connection with the possible committing of criminal offences by employees of the Tassos Papadopoulos law office. These allegations related to the activities of former associates of the president, who were connected with the Yugoslavian offshore company Antexol and two other persons.
The question is: Whatever happened to this investigation and at what stage is it now, 14 months after it began? Commenting on the case of the foreign woman who had been put in prison with her baby, Nikitas had said that he placed the enforcement of the law above everything. He would therefore agree with me when I say that the investigation into the above-mentioned case needs to be speeded up.
The Attorney-general should not give anyone the opportunity to accuse him of exhibiting his courage selectively.
