**NICOSIA, CYPRUS** – The long-standing debate surrounding the scope and application of parliamentary immunity in Cyprus has been reignited with renewed urgency, following recent allegations of violent behaviour against a serving Member of Parliament. The case has once again cast a spotlight on a constitutional provision that critics argue shields lawmakers from accountability for actions entirely divorced from their legislative duties, prompting calls for swift and decisive amendment.
The immediate catalyst for the current controversy involves Nikos Sykas, a deputy from the Disy party, who is reportedly facing accusations of domestic abuse from his partner. Crucially, the Attorney-General's office has been compelled to seek explicit permission from the Supreme Court to even initiate questioning of Sykas, a procedural hurdle that underscores the extensive protection afforded by his parliamentary immunity. This necessity highlights the perception, widely held by the public and a segment of the political establishment, that the current framework grants deputies an untenable degree of impunity, effectively placing them beyond the reach of ordinary law for personal misconduct.
This is not an unprecedented situation. The annals of Cypriot parliamentary history are replete with instances where the privilege of immunity has been invoked to circumvent investigations into alleged improprieties. Former deputies, including Andreas Themistocleous and Giorgos Perdikis, have previously spoken out about the perceived abuse of this safeguard. Perdikis, for his part, initiated a motion to address the issue as far back as 2012, signalling that concerns about the overreach of parliamentary privilege have been simmering for over a decade. Similar legislative attempts were made by former minister Ionas Nicolaou in 2016, with subsequent amendments to a relevant bill in 2021, yet the fundamental constitutional hurdle remains.
The core of the parliamentary immunity provision, as enshrined in the Cypriot constitution, is intended to safeguard legislators from undue pressure or intimidation when performing their official functions, particularly when expressing opinions or casting votes within the House of Representatives. The rationale is to ensure robust parliamentary debate free from external coercion. However, the current interpretation and application of this immunity extend to all actions undertaken by a serving deputy, requiring judicial approval for any prosecution, a process that many deem to be an anachronism in a modern democracy.
The implications of this protracted debate are significant. The House Legal Affairs Committee has been a recurring venue for these discussions, yet tangible progress has often been stymied by a preference for further studies or a lack of consensus on the precise nature of constitutional reform. Some have proposed comparative analyses of how other jurisdictions manage parliamentary immunity, a suggestion often viewed by detractors as a tactic to delay substantive action. The risk, as pointed out by proponents of reform, is that without a constitutional amendment restricting immunity solely to parliamentary activities, deputies will continue to enjoy a de facto shield against accountability for a broad spectrum of alleged wrongdoings, from traffic violations to more serious accusations.
The urgency for change has been amplified by the perception of wasted judicial resources and the erosion of public trust. The Supreme Court's involvement in granting permission for routine investigations is seen by some as an unnecessary burden. As the current parliamentary term progresses, there is a palpable sense of pressure to address this constitutional deficiency before the end of the current legislative period, lest the cycle of debate and inaction perpetuate a system that, in the eyes of many, undermines the fundamental principle of equality before the law. The coming months are likely to be critical in determining whether Cyprus can finally reconcile the need to protect parliamentary function with the imperative of holding all citizens, including its elected representatives, accountable for their actions.