“Don’t judge based on emotion,” say the rationalists, “it’s a matter of law.” Yet, when reading the decision of the Supreme Constitutional Court, one cannot help but detect an abundance of emotion.
Such a plethora of characterisations in a legal decision is unprecedented for any convicted individual, regardless of the offence.
When, months ago, the prosecution of Odysseas Michaelides was announced, and it became known that the charges revolved around inappropriate behaviour substantiated by posts from known and unknown individuals, or even members of his family, it sounded absurd.
And yet, in the end, not only was his behaviour inappropriate, but it was despicable. He was deemed incapable of performing the duties entrusted to him, acting with ulterior motives aimed at undermining the heads of the Law Office. He lacked moderation, prudence, and sound judgment. He was biased and prejudiced, with no understanding of the limits of his authority or respect for state institutions. He resorted to excessive statements and announcements, often of a misleading nature.
His stance towards the Attorney General and the Assistant Attorney General was reprehensible and fell short of the circumstances and the level of the office he held. He arrogated to himself the role of the unique, impartial protector of the interests of the citizens. He was seduced by the Sirens of popularity and polls, confusing the boundaries of his institutional role and exposing the established functioning of the heads of the Law Office, overlooking the fact that any personal perception and any differences he had with these individuals did not concern state institutions, which are impersonal by nature and in their mission.
He blatantly ignored the opinions of the Attorney General, resorting to inappropriate characterisations, impermissible comments, and insinuations, attributing ulterior motives. He led and involved citizens and social media in unacceptable and dangerous behaviour for the rule of law. He crossed the line, violating the presumption of innocence of another official, with an obsession, even, of referring to popular courts. He failed to rise to the occasion. He devalued the institutions in the eyes of the citizens without realizing that when institutions are corroded, they are devalued in the eyes of the citizens, and “chaos ensues.”
With all that is attributed to him, not only should he be removed from his duties, but he should be sentenced to life imprisonment, or better yet, sent into exile. Such an individual, with such behaviours, is not only incapable but also dangerous. He poses a threat to order and tranquillity. However, it is doubtful that with the removal of Odysseas, the institutions will be saved or that citizens will regain their trust in them.
Read more: