It hardly matters what the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General declare in their asset disclosures, since everyone declares whatever they want and certainly not where they got it from.
What matters is the President’s haste to send back the law passed by Parliament, supposedly protecting the heads of the prosecution service from having to declare their assets “for the good of the institution they represent”.
“On the contrary”, ruled the Supreme Court, “asset declaration serves as an additional guarantee of institutional integrity by promoting transparency and accountability, thus strengthening the public’s essential trust in the institution”.
This was preceded by the Law Office’s opinion that the President isn’t obliged to return the €55,000 he received in foreign service allowances while serving in Cyprus.
The opinion was requested by the interested party himself (the President) following allegations by the former Auditor General.
While this exonerating opinion was issued in April, it wasn’t made public – heaven forbid we suspicious minds might connect it to the President’s stance on the prosecution’s request to dismiss the Auditor, or to his rejection of Parliament’s law on asset declarations for the Attorney General and deputy.
Nevertheless, the impression created is that the Legal Service is anything but an independent institution.
While there may have been some relationship between the Presidential office and Attorney General in the past, they’re not even keeping up appearances anymore.
The prevailing impression now is that they’re two communicating vessels, each serving the other whenever and however possible. One hand washes the other, as it were.
Meanwhile, it’s quite revealing which issues prompt the President to exercise his right to send laws back to Parliament.
Apart from the rejection aimed at protecting Savvides and Angelides, another telling example concerns luxury camping, or “Glamping”, and visitor-accessible farms.
Instead of concerning himself with environmental protection, the President seems more worried about the interests of those wanting to expand into another sector.
While enriching our tourism product with such facilities isn’t inherently wrong, it should be done under strict conditions to protect the environment.
It took the Supreme Court to tell the President that requiring environmental impact assessments for luxury camping projects doesn’t violate the Constitution.