NICOSIA – Cyprus's Attorney-General, George Savvides, has voiced significant reservations regarding a government-backed proposal that would empower the Supreme Court to scrutinise decisions made by future attorneys-general. The contentious element forms part of a broader legislative package aimed at restructuring the attorney-general’s office, a move Savvides believes raises "serious constitutional reservations."
The proposed reforms, currently under consideration by the House legal affairs committee, seek to bifurcate the multifaceted role of the attorney-general. The envisaged legislation would establish two distinct positions: the Attorney-General, primarily tasked with advising the government on legal matters, and a Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), responsible for the prosecution of criminal offences. This division, according to the bill, would necessitate differentiated appeal mechanisms for decisions emanating from each office.
Under the current framework, the attorney-general's decisions are largely insulated from external review. However, the reform bill introduces a paradigm shift. A key point of contention, as articulated by Savvides, pertains to the proposed appellate route for the attorney-general's decisions. The bill stipulates that such appeals would be directed straight to the Supreme Court. In contrast, challenges to the DPP's rulings would initially be adjudicated by an internal committee within the legal service, with the Supreme Court serving as a secondary avenue for appeal.
Savvides, in discussions with the House committee, highlighted "serious reasons" why the proposed review process warrants careful reconsideration. He emphasised the imperative of establishing a robust and unimpeachable system of oversight for the future. While acknowledging the government's objective to enhance accountability, the Attorney-General indicated that the discussions have not yet yielded a definitive consensus. "The issue must be resolved through the correct process and at the right level, so as to form a strong and unquestionable system of control for the future," Savvides reportedly stated, underscoring the gravity of the matter.
The proposed division of the attorney-general's responsibilities also extends to the appointment of deputies for both the new roles. This restructuring signals a significant departure from the established legal architecture in Cyprus, aiming to delineate advisory functions from prosecutorial powers more clearly. The government's rationale behind these reforms is ostensibly to address criticisms regarding the concentration of power and to introduce more transparent checks and balances.
However, the specific mechanism for Supreme Court intervention in the attorney-general’s decision-making process has emerged as a focal point of debate. Critics, including Savvides, appear to question whether direct Supreme Court review aligns with the constitutional separation of powers and the independence of the legal service. The potential impact of these reforms could be far-reaching, fundamentally altering the landscape of legal governance and accountability in the Republic of Cyprus. The ultimate shape of these changes, and the precise role of the judiciary in overseeing executive legal functions, remains a subject of ongoing deliberation.