JUSTICE MINISTER Loucas Louca and Papadopoulos family confidant Chrysis Pantelides yesterday ramped up their public row over suspect Sabrjit Singh’s demand for money to divulge the whereabouts of the dead president’s body.

The war of words descended into a battle over definitions yesterday, with Pantelides saying that asking for a reward in return for information is not the same as making a ransom demand.

On Tuesday morning, Louca told reporters that the police investigation into the grave-robbery case had shown that “ransom demands lay behind the theft and there was no political motive whatsoever”. He said the Papadopoulos family had received a ransom demand, but following police advice had refused to pay anything.

Hearing of Louca’s comments, Pantelides refuted the minister’s comments within minutes live on CyBC TV, denying categorically that the family had received “any demand whatsoever for ransom, full-stop.”

Later that afternoon, Pantelides gave a statement to the Cyprus News Agency “on behalf of the Papadopoulos family”, saying “they had received no demand or request for the payment of ransom for the delivery or location of the remains of the former President, and of course neither had they paid any ransom to anybody”.

In his second press conference of the day at 4.30pm, Louca stood his ground, saying that as Justice Minister, he was “obliged to uphold the truth”, and that everything he had referred to earlier regarding ransom demands were based on his close knowledge of what the family had told police in the course of their investigation.

“And so, responsibly, I can say that the motives for the crime were financial,” Louca said.

Pantelides in turn rebutted Louca’s later statements, telling CyBC that he was very familiar with the case and repeated that the family had not received any ransom demand.

Yesterday, Pantelides – a close associate of the former president and currently the Director of the Tassos Papadopoulos Foundation – said again that no ransom had been demanded, but admitted that “monetary reward” had been asked for in return for information.

“There is an essential difference between a ‘reward’ that might be discussed with someone offering information – and I repeat we had a lot of people offering information during this period – and ‘ransom’ which is asked for either in the form of blackmail or otherwise by the perpetrators of a crime”, he said.

Pantelides added: “We are trying to point out the truth, and ransom was not demanded. It is not our job to say what the motives were in this case.”

Louca said again yesterday that “the motives for the crime have become clear, and they were financial”.

He said that, in view of all the various theories being put forward about the theft – political motivation, the involvement of foreign secret services, etc. – it was his duty as a government minister to keep the public informed.

“The important thing for people to know is that the motives were financial,” he said.

He added: “I do not withdraw anything I said (on Tuesday).”

When it was pointed out to him that the Papadopoulos family appeared to object to the word ‘ransom’, Louca retorted: “How about if we use the term ‘monetary demands’?”