Attorney-general George Savvides decided not to charge former auditor-general Odysseas Michaelides with contempt of court, for public comments and social media posts, disputing the independence, impartiality and legitimacy of court procedures and of the judges. Michaelides had gone on the offensive as soon as the decision to terminate his services was taken by the council of the supreme constitutional court a year ago.

He made allegations of judicial corruption several times since then and in May of this year, on TV show he claimed that he had been told by a close associate of the president, well before the supreme constitutional court had announced its decision, that he would be found guilty of “inappropriate behaviour” and dismissed from his post. The implication of his claims was that he had been set up, and that the presidency, AG and judges had conspired to get rid of him.

These were shocking allegations which Savvides had an obligation to investigate. The office of the AG asked Michaelides to provide evidence and to fully assist the investigation of his allegations. The police invited him to give a statement and submit any information that would help the investigation but he was unable to provide any evidence to corroborate his claims. This failure to provide any evidence, the AG explained in a statement issued yesterday, led him to initiate an investigation in connection with contempt of court by Michaelides. Although there were grounds to prosecute, Savvides decided against this because there was “a danger of making the public climate worse.”

We suspect this was a political decision, given Michaelides’ undisputed talent for presenting himself as the innocent victim of the corrupt establishment, whenever things go against him. The irony is that Michaelides had always reported people for allegedly disobeying rules, ignoring procedures and failing to protect the public interest. But when the system found that he was guilty of inappropriate behaviour on several counts, he lost his respect for the rule of law and justice.

When a few weeks ago, the court gave a prison sentence to the former commissioner for volunteerism, Yiannakis Yiannaki, for the use of forged documents, Michaelides praised the justice system (“justice did the right thing as it should have done,” he said). Until a few months ago, according to Michaelides, the judiciary was corrupt, biased, lacking integrity and in cahoots with the executive, while now it merits his praise.

This selective support for the rule of law by Michaelides is quite worrying, especially as he has plans for a political career and is eyeing the presidency. Does he plan to be the type of president who will decide when there will be rule of law and when rule of law can be suspended for special cases? This is the only conclusion we can reach based on Michaelides’ blatant double standards, not to mention his reckless irresponsibility in making very serious allegation that he could not back with a shred of evidence. This is not the behaviour of someone, who has consistently advertised himself as the official who more respectful of the law than anyone.