Christodoulides insists has ‘no disagreement’ with AG over legal service reform

President Nikos Christodoulides on Tuesday insisted he has “no disagreement” with Attorney-General George Savvides over the government’s planned reforms to the legal service, as debate continues over plans to split the role of the attorney-general into two. “There is no disagreement. The attorney-general, whose views are fully respected, expressed his own personal opinion. Furthermore, the executive branch has submitted a very specific proposal to parliament, and I hope it will be passed as soon as possible,” he said. He added that the plans have been “demanded by our society” and also “feature in reports on the rule of law in our country issued by European and international institutions”. “It is a reform which was long overdue. Our government had the resolve to bring it before parliament, and I hope for a positive outcome very soon,” he said. Related Articles • Savvides questions whether Supreme Court should be charged with review of attorney-general decisions • Our View: Less for palaces, more for real needs • AG remains opposed to splitting office into two • Splitting of attorney-general’s role ‘necessary’, Christodoulides says • Our View: Justice reform cannot wait another year • EU encourages Cyprus to continue with legal service reform Savvides had last week expressed disagreement with the plans, telling the House legal affairs committee that they may be unconstitutional, and warning of potential serious consequences if the government’s bills are passed and then subsequently overturned by the Supreme Court. The government’s plans foresee the division of the role of the attorney-general into two and the establishment of the position of a director of public prosecutions (DPP), with both the attorney-general and the DPP to have deputies. The attorney-general will remain as the state’s legal adviser and the head of the legal service, while the DPP and their deputy will undertake the attorney-general’s current responsibilities relating to public prosecutions. One issue raised by Savvides was the fact that, according to the Republic of Cyprus’ constitution, one of either the DPP or the deputy DPP would be required to be a Turkish Cypriot, and that given that this would not be the case, questions would be raised regarding the creation of new government offices under the doctrine of necessity. Savvides expressed ‘serious reservations’ about plans to invoke ‘doctrine of necessity’ The doctrine of necessity was borne out of the effective collapse of the bicommunal Republic of Cyprus as constitutionally envisioned in 1963. Savvides had previously raised similar issues, saying that he maintains “serious reservations” regarding the government’s plans to invoke the doctrine of necessity to change the constitution to enact the planned reform. “As the attorney-general today and the defender of legality, the rule of law, and public interest, I consider it my duty, at least at this stage, to point out the constitutional visible risks which may arise in the event that the proposed bills are passed with enormous, insurmountable, I would say, negative consequences in the event of a successful challenge to their constitutionality,” he wrote. In addition to the plans to split the role of the attorney-general into two, the reform bill has set out two different processes for appeals against decisions by the attorney-general and the DPP. At present, decisions made by the attorney-general cannot be appealed, but should the reforms be implemented, appeals against decisions made by the attorney-general will be taken directly to the Supreme Court, while appeals against decisions made by the DPP will be subject to a two-step process. The first step will be the convention of an internal legal service committee of prosecutors, while the second step, if the first step is also appealed, will see the case heard at the Supreme Court. The government’s plans also foresee that all four roles – those of the attorney-general, the DPP, and the two assistants – will be limited to a single eight-year term. All four will be required to retire either at the end of the term or on their 68th birthday, whichever is soonest. If passed by parliament, the new law will come into force on December 1, apart from the term limit provision, which will come into force when the constitution is amended to allow it.