Court proceedings in one of the most high-profile corruption cases in Cyprus in recent decades have come to an end. On Wednesday, 17 December, the Nicosia Criminal Court announced the conclusion of hearings and stated that it will deliver its verdict on 17 February 2026 at 10:00 a.m. The defendants in the case are former Speaker of the Cypriot Parliament Dimitris Syllouris and former AKEL MP Christakis Giovani.
They were implicated in the major scandal revealed by an Al Jazeera investigation in 2020, which exposed widespread abuses of Cyprus’s investment citizenship program. Following the publication of the report, the so-called “golden passport” scheme was completely abolished, and the Cypriot authorities launched a series of criminal and administrative investigations.
Nature of the Charges and the Prosecution’s Position
The prosecution argues that the defendants used their official positions, political influence, and business connections to facilitate the unlawful granting of Cypriot citizenship to foreign investors. They face charges including conspiracy to defraud the Republic of Cyprus, abuse of power, bribery of public officials, and unlawful interference in naturalization procedures.
During closing arguments, the prosecution firmly rejected the defense’s claims that the defendants’ right to a fair trial had been violated. State Legal Service representative Haris Karaolidou stated that the defense was distorting the facts in an attempt to portray the proceedings as biased, noting that its arguments were contradictory in nature.
Dispute over Witnesses and the Role of the Accused
One of the key points of contention was the prosecution’s decision not to call lawyer Andreas Pittadjis as a witness. The defense argued that his absence undermined the fairness of the trial. The prosecution countered that this claim was unfounded, emphasizing that Pittadjis was a central figure in the alleged offenses rather than a neutral witness.
Attempts to portray Syllouris and Giovani as passive participants were also rejected. According to the prosecution, the evidence presented points to their active involvement, coordination of actions, and direct interference in specific citizenship cases.
Prosecutorial Independence and the Gornovskiy Case
The prosecution also addressed defense claims of an alleged conflict of interest involving Deputy Attorney General Savvas Angelides, who had previously served as Minister of Defense and participated in Cabinet meetings where naturalization matters were discussed. In response, reference was made to a Supreme Court ruling affirming the constitutional independence of the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General, as well as their exclusive authority to conduct criminal prosecutions in the public interest.
The court also heard allegations that Syllouris personally intervened to accelerate and coordinate certain applications. As an example, the so-called Gornovskiy case was cited, in which a previously rejected application was allegedly reconsidered without the submission of new evidence following his intervention.
Context and Significance of the Case for Cyprus
This trial is regarded as a turning point for Cyprus’s legal system and the country’s international reputation. Following the “golden passport” scandal, Cyprus tightened oversight of investment attraction programs, reformed naturalization procedures, and intensified cooperation with European institutions in combating money laundering and corruption. The verdict in the case against Syllouris and Giovani could serve as an important signal of the state’s willingness to hold former high-ranking officials accountable.