The Anti-Corruption Authority will issue its ‘announcement’ about the investigation into allegations made against former president Nicos Anastasiades in the book Mafia State, by June 15 at the latest, Transparency Commissioner Haris Poyiadjis said. At the start of May the authority said that the volume of the work made it difficult to give a precise date for the release of the announcement but that it would be ready before the end of June.

Poyiadjis also said all other work had been put on hold so that the write-ups on the Mafia State investigation could be completed. The investigation carried out by four ‘investigating’ officers that included a prominent Australian lawyer, who was leading proceedings, lasted about two years. There were 214 hearings at which 150 people gave testimony and a total of 793 documents were submitted as evidence. The total number of pages produced was 3,000 including the appendices.

Going through all this testimony and the evaluating conclusions of the investigating officers, undoubtedly required time. What seems unclear is what the Authority means by ‘announcement’. Will this be a summary of the main findings of the investigation drafted by the commissioner and the investigating officers? Would the 3,000 pages of the investigation be made available to the public or will people be informed exclusively by the Authority’s ‘announcement’.

It must be made clear that the findings, even if they indicate serious wrongdoing, would have to be referred to the attorney-general, who will decide whether there was enough evidence to order a criminal investigation of Anastasiades’ actions. This raises another issue – it will be argued that the attorney-general and the deputy AG were unsuitable to review the case and decide the next steps because of their close links to Anastasiades. Both were appointed to their posts by the former president, in whose government they served as ministers.

Giorgos Savvides and his deputy Savvas Angelides would be in an extremely difficult position when handed the report. If the report highlighted cases of alleged wrongdoing and the AG decided that a criminal investigation was not justified he would be accused of blatant bias. On the other hand, could Savvides order an investigation against a man he regards as his friend and to whom he owes his political career? Many such questions will have to be answered when the Authority’s announcement is made public.

All this could have been avoided if Anastasiades had not demanded an investigation of Makarios Drousiotis’ book by the Anti-Corruption Authority, in the belief that all allegations against him would be declared baseless. Is it the job of the authority to investigate the accuracy of allegations made against politicians, in order to exonerate them? This was Anastasiades’ objective in seeking an investigation, when he could have taken his case to the courts, as he had done subsequently, and not troubled the Authority and the Legal Service.