The golden passports trial is drawing significant scrutiny as George Papaioannou, the defence lawyer representing former MP Christakis Giovanis, delivered his final address in the Nicosia Criminal Court. He accused the prosecution of engaging in “manifest deception” against the defence.
- “This was decided along the way, without amending the indictment and with manifest deception of the defence,” Papaioannou argued, highlighting the discrepancies that had arisen.
- In light of these arguments, he requested the court to acquit Giovanis on all charges.
This case, linked to the infamous golden passports scandal, emerged following a 2020 Al Jazeera undercover investigation that prompted the resignations of Giovanis and former Speaker of the House, Demetris Syllouris.
Golden passports: Prosecution’s Focus Shift
Papaioannou asserted that the prosecution had strayed from the original charges, which were centred on residency permit criteria. He claimed that the courtroom evidence was concentrated on financial issues that had not been investigated by the police, thereby compromising the accused’s right to a fair trial.
During interrogations, he noted that Giovanis, Syllouris, and lawyer Andreas Pittadjis were questioned solely about residency permits, which formed the basis of charges two and three. However, he pointed out that none of the police inquiries addressed the financial aspects that the prosecution later relied upon in court.
“This was decided along the way, without amending the indictment and with manifest deception of the defence,” Papaioannou argued, highlighting the discrepancies that had arisen.
Concerns Over Missing Testimonies
Another pivotal aspect of Papaioannou’s address was the absence of two crucial figures from the trial, which he claimed resulted in significant gaps in testimony and distorted the facts presented in court. He specifically mentioned the missing service provider, Andreas Pittadjis, who had played a central role in the case as both Gornovski’s lawyer and Giovanis’s legal advisor.
Pittadjis was initially co-defendant in the first three indictments but was removed from the fourth indictment without explanation, raising concerns about the integrity of the prosecution’s case. Papaioannou contended that the evidence suggested Pittadjis had a far more active role than Giovanis, whose involvement was limited to signing the Reservation Agreement under Pittadjis’s guidance.
He also noted that Nikolai Gornovski, the naturalised investor, was absent from the indictment and had not been questioned as a suspect. “The absence of both the service provider and the investor creates a one-sided and distorted picture of the case,” he emphasised.
Call for Acquittal Amidst Legal Flaws
Papaioannou concluded his address by highlighting the overarching flaws in the legal process, asserting that the defence was presented with charges that diverged significantly from those initially investigated. He introduced the notion of “lurking doubt,” suggesting that the case was fraught with insurmountable issues that would render any conviction “extremely erroneous” and “insecure.”
In light of these arguments, he requested the court to acquit Giovanis on all charges.
Prosecution’s Next Steps
In response to the defence’s claims, prosecution representative Charis Karaolidou sought additional time from the court to formulate a counter to the assertions regarding fair trial violations. The court has scheduled a new hearing for tomorrow at 09:30 to address the prosecution’s response and will announce the date for its decision afterward.
Leave a Reply