MPs are desperately trying to fiddle with their proposed statements of wealth

On Tuesday, October 25, Andreas Pasiourtides and Pavlos Mylonas, both members of the House of Representatives’ institutions committee, appeared on the TV show ‘Alpha Briefing’ to defend some truly strange behaviour by certain committee members in the current debate on ‘pothen esches’ (‘where have the funds come from?’) concerning politically exposed persons.

The first thing Mr Pasiourtides emphasised was the inadequacy of those criticising the handling of this issue by MPs. Strangely, Mr Pasiourtides blamed himself for the inadequacy by attributing it to the fact that “for quite some time now the Committee on Institutions has abandoned the practice of working on written texts”. I do not quite know what this statement means, but certainly it does not imply a high level of transparency, nor does it suggest extensive public consultation.

Then, Mr Pasiourtides was quick to reassure the viewers that “the Deputy Minister of Innovation has presented to MPs ‘a platform’ that, at least in theory, would close most if not all the loopholes that journalists and the public rightly claim that persist in the ‘pothen esches’ legislation.” These were his words.

He then expressed surprise over the impression that parliament is seeking a cover-up. “We all agree that the current regime of pothen esches is anachronistic and is in an urgent need of improvement; we also agree that one should be able to detect those cases in which an MP enters parliament with a wealth of X, leaves parliament with wealth Y and he/she is unable to bridge the two. This is the whole point. Beyond that, if the three consider…” (apparently, he was referring to Sir Christopher Pissarides, Christos Panayiotides and Nicos Syrimis, the authors of an updated pothen esches proposal). It was precisely at this point that the presenter of the programme asked another question and Mr Pasiourtides grabbed the opportunity to go completely off tangent!

I do apologise to Mr Pasiourtides for running the risk of upsetting him, by highlighting the following:

  1. The very serious shortcomings of the existing ‘pothen esches’ legislation, which render the whole exercise a joke, were identified two years ago. They were made public by being posted on the internet at <pothen-esches-cyprus>. Since then, they have remained freely accessible to everyone, including the members of the House of Representatives.
  2. About one-and-a-half years ago, we appeared before the institutions committee and diligently explained the reasons why the Cypriot version of ‘pothen esches’ has never worked since the law was enacted, 18 years ago.
  3. When we recently learned that the Deputy Minister of Innovation Kyriacos Kokkinos had outsourced the computerisation of ‘pothen esches’ to external consultants, we contacted the minister and asked how is it possible to computerise a system that is still in a state of flux and, according to our evaluation, is still full of errors that will definitely perpetuate the ineffectiveness of the system? Indeed, we suggested that the computerisation process should be placed on hold until the relevant legislation is finalised, especially in view of the commitment by all the presidential candidates to implement the Pissarides-Panayiotides-Syrimis proposal, soon after one of them gets elected. Kokkinos’ response was that “the issue of placing the process on hold is in the hands of parliament and the competent committees, to which your views and concerns have been relayed for their consideration”.
  4. Of course, our concerns and objections were not abstract or vague generalities. They were and continue to be very specific reservations, some good examples of which are cited in our recent open letter to the president and MPs on the House committee. On the substance of these objections, neither Mr Pasiourtides or Mr Mylonas, nor anybody else has taken a position so far. In our observations, objections and recommendations we were very specific, explicit and focused. As citizens of this country, we retain the right to demand a comprehensive response on the issue of ‘pothen esches’, particularly since we are in a pre-election campaign period. Inevitably, a serious issue arises here. If the elected president of the Republic proceeds – as we hope he will – to implement the Pissarides-Panayiotides-Syrimis proposal and finds himself struggling against obstacles that are intentionally thrown up by the elected lawmakers of this country, what will happen? I, for one, would like to know the answer to this burning question.
  5. But the problem is not confined here because – in the meantime – I have heard that in the House institutions committee battles have been fought by Irene Charalambides assisted by Andreas Themistocleous, also members of the committee, who have been insisting on the exclusion from the declarations of the wealth of politically exposed persons (PEPs), of jewellery and works of art. If this is true, we are not talking about a ‘loophole’ in the law, but about a giant pothole!

Some two years ago, the Vassilis & Eliza Goulandris Museum of Contemporary Art opened its doors. The museum is located on Eratosthenous Street in Athens. It is a great museum and if you find yourself in Athens, it would be a grave mistake not to visit it. The museum houses a great collection of contemporary works of art that its two wealthy founders bought during their lifetime and donated to a not-for-profits foundation, shortly before their death. The current value of the exhibits in the museum has been estimated at €2.5 billion (yes, billion). This information should be taken into consideration by our MPs, prior to seeking the exclusion of jewelry and works of art from the Cypriot PEP wealth statements.

In closing this article, I would like to ask Mr Pasiourtides to allow me to give him a piece of advice. Instead of wandering daily on television channels for the purposes of proclaiming the purity of his intentions, he would better confine himself to his parliamentary office, carefully study the expert opinion on ‘pothen esches’ of people who are intimately familiar with the tool and, once he assimilates the advice given, he should adopt our recommendations as all the presidential candidates have done, thus securing a good, independent testimony for himself.

Christos Panayiotides is a regular columnist for the Sunday Mail and Alithia