Former President of the Supreme Court, Myron Nicolatos — who chaired the ad-hoc Committee to investigate irregularities in the Cyprus Investment Program, commonly known as the “golden passports” scheme — speaks exclusively to CIReN, four years after submitting the Committee’s final report.
He reflects on the responsibilities that were never assumed and the justice that never truly followed.
“We did valuable work, we presented detailed findings, and I had hoped more would be done,” he says.
“It was up to the Attorney General to decide how investigations or prosecutions would proceed; under the Constitution, he is the competent authority.”
He reflects on institutional failure: “Responsibility lies with the Council of Ministers. The facts are there, the mistakes are documented — but its members never took responsibility.”
Transparency, he insists, applies to everyone. “Former President Anastasiades had a conflict of interest and did not declare it.”
Interview by Kyriakos Pierides
KP: In your report, you refer to an “institutional failure.” Has there been any remedy since?
MN: Some steps have been taken in the right direction. For example, certain passports that were unlawfully issued to individuals of questionable standing have been revoked. Some cases have been brought before the courts and are still pending. The Golden Passport program has been terminated.
KP: Could more have been done?
MN: I believe the work carried out by the Investigative Committee — in which I participated — was very thorough and of high quality. I had hoped that perhaps more could have been done based on our report.
KP: Why didn’t it lead to more decisive action?
MN: Our committee was investigative in nature. We had no powers of interrogation or prosecution. We gathered the material and submitted it to the Attorney General of the Republic. It was then up to him and the relevant authorities to decide whether to proceed with investigations or prosecutions, and how to handle the report overall.
KP: What is causing the entire process to move so slowly?
MN: It is true that some cases brought before the courts encountered problems or were dismissed. In court, criminal proceedings follow a strict legal process, where guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. In some cases, that threshold may not have been met.
KP: Out of more than 500 high-risk cases, only three have reached the courts. Why is that?
MN: The Committee simply indicated that these cases were considered high-risk, without going into the details of any investigative or prosecutorial procedures.
KP: Still, did you provide enough evidence for those who were supposed to take the next step?
MN: Yes! I believe that the material collected by the Committee — including testimony from individuals who were summoned before us — contained evidence that could have served as a basis for further investigation, if the relevant authorities deemed it appropriate, fair, and necessary.
KP: Who bears responsibility — the person who submitted the application, their intermediary, or the one who approved the golden passport?
MN: The decisive role lies with the authority that approves the application — and in the case of the golden passports, that was the Council of Ministers. However, the Council relied heavily on the investigation and conclusions of the competent ministry, namely the Ministry of the Interior.
KP: So where does accountability lie? With the civil servants or the political superiors?
MN: Generally, it is difficult to say whether the responsibility lies with the minister or the relevant civil servant. It depends on the specific case and its facts, which must be thoroughly investigated. The investigative work is ordered by the Attorney General but carried out by the Police.
KP: How credible is the allegation that the procedures were rushed or handled loosely without the President and the members of the Council of Ministers knowing who they were granting citizenship to?
MN: There was undoubtedly a very large number of applications, and I believe it would have been practically impossible for the Council to examine each case in detail. However, the responsibility lies with the Council of Ministers, which is the competent body under the law to approve such applications. I do not wish to cast blame on anyone, but the facts speak for themselves.
KP: And what do the facts say?
MN: Mistakes were made, and the law was exceeded in more than half of the cases. Citizenship was granted to relatives of applicants — something not provided for by the law. Therefore, these errors are there. As for what happened in each individual case, I cannot recall.
KP: So, is the responsibility collective?
MN: I don’t believe we can conclude that the Council of Ministers, which approved some of these applications, bears collective criminal responsibility. I don’t think that’s the case.
KP: Does the issue of conflict of interest remain for political figures?
MN: I believe that anyone who had a conflict of interest, in any form, should have either recused themselves from the process or, at the very least, declared it and obtained the consent of the others — indicating that there was no objection to their participation.
KP: What about the President, who chairs the Council of Ministers?
MN: The President presides over the Council but is not a member of it. And he does not vote.
KP: Is he then an “irresponsible sovereign”?
MN: He is not irresponsible, but in this case, the fact remains that the authority to approve applications lies with the Council of Ministers, and the President is not a member of that body.
KP: What responsibility does the President hold?
MN: Strictly speaking, since the President is not a member of the Council, he does not have the formal obligation to recuse himself or declare a conflict and obtain consent from the others. However, transparency rules apply to everyone, and it might have been better if the President, in the event of a conflict of interest, had declared it.
KP: Is it a conflict of interest that the law firm “Nicos Anastasiades” submitted and received approval for 57 golden passport applications?
MN: It is a conflict of interest, given that, as stated, the law firm bearing the name of the former President was 50% owned by his two daughters — who are his first-degree relatives.
KP: In the four years that have passed, has anyone taken responsibility?
MN: I believe the former President acknowledged certain things as possible mistakes — political mistakes — that he may have committed. I’m not sure, however, if he referred specifically to this issue.
KP: Were there also conflicts of interest involving ministers and other politicians?
MN: As far as I know, I don’t believe any minister has made a statement acknowledging responsibility.
KP: Are the golden passports subject to scrutiny by the EU?
MN: This program constituted a violation of EU law. In the absence of a genuine bond to the country, it breached the principles of good faith and cooperation between member states. A member state cannot simply “sell” European citizenship in exchange for money or investment.
KP: Which of these individuals actually have a genuine bond to Cyprus?
MN: The state should make that determination — and it can be verified. However, it is possible for someone to purchase a property and then later divest it, to sell it off.
KP: Is that difficult to verify?
MN: I don’t know how difficult it is, but the state is capable of determining it.
KP: As a person, how heavy does all this weigh on you — now that four years have passed and we are still discussing these matters?
MN: I feel that we did substantial work during the nine months we worked. There were differences of opinion, but we managed to present our report — which was unanimous — and, I say this with humility, I believe it was of real value.
KP: Could there have been a different kind of procedure — one with investigative powers — after the report?
MN: Within our current system, the Attorney General is the key competent authority.
KP: In conclusion, what should have happened the day you submitted the report?
MN: A thorough study of the report — which I assume was done — followed by decisions from the competent authorities on which cases required further investigation. I assume that happened as well, though I don’t have concrete information. However, I do know that the full report was forwarded to the Police for them to carry out their investigative work. That only a few cases made it to court is a fact.