**Title: ‘If I was wrong, hang me’ says Paschalidis on Videogate probe**
Questions surrounding the handling of the Videogate investigation have escalated following statements made by independent criminal investigator Andreas Paschalides. During an extraordinary session of the House institutions committee, Paschalides acknowledged that he “may have made a mistake in the wording” of his public statements after submitting his findings to Attorney-General George Savvides. His deputy, Savvas Angelides, defended the decision to withhold details of the ongoing investigation, emphasizing the need to protect the integrity of the criminal process.
The committee convened to scrutinize Paschalides' public remarks regarding the Videogate recordings, which were produced by the private intelligence firm Black Cube. The investigation has drawn significant attention, and committee chairman Demetris Demetriou noted that Paschalides' initial statement prompted parliamentary intervention, while his subsequent comments raised further questions.
Paschalides faced challenges from committee members regarding his references to a “hybrid attack” and apparent contradictions in his findings. He was questioned about the timing of his public statements, which were issued before Savvides had completed his assessment of the investigation. Angelides, addressing the committee, stated that while the legal service respects the oversight role of parliament, it also has a duty to safeguard an ongoing criminal investigation. He expressed concern that discussing the case publicly could influence the investigative process.
After outlining the legal service’s position, Angelides declined to answer specific questions about the investigation and left the committee room shortly thereafter. Demetriou responded by asserting that parliament is not a court and questioned whether the legal service was unnecessarily limiting scrutiny of the investigation.
Paschalides accepted responsibility for the confusion caused by his statements, explaining that he aimed to keep the public informed after completing a segment of the investigation. He acknowledged that his wording may have led to misunderstandings, stating, “I realized that my own impression was not completely understood. Perhaps I also made a mistake in the wording.” He emphasized that his conclusions were based on the evidence available at the time and could change if new information emerged.
In a dramatic assertion, Paschalides remarked, “If I was wrong, hang me,” as he defended his decision to issue a statement soon after completing his report on July 17. He clarified that he drafted the announcement over the weekend following the completion of his report, stating, “I finished it on the 17th of the month and received it on Friday. I sat down over the weekend to write the announcement.”
Paschalides also defended his use of terms such as “empty talk” and “babbling,” explaining that these phrases were drawn from established case law regarding influence peddling, rather than being direct references to specific criminal offenses. He dismissed any suggestions that his reappointment as president of the watchdog tasked with investigating police complaints (Aadipa) influenced his work, asserting that he was recommended by the Attorney General for his performance.
In response to the ongoing controversy, Antonis Demetriou, the lawyer for Black Cube, disputed claims that the company had conducted a hybrid attack against Cyprus, asserting that they possessed “26 hours of authentic material.” Deputy Minister to the President Irene Piki supported Paschalides, stating that his appointments in both 2021 and 2026 were based on recommendations from Savvides. She also refuted claims that government spokesman Constantinos Letymbiotis had been misled by Paschalides’ initial statement.
As the investigation continues, the House institutions committee remains focused on ensuring transparency and accountability in the proceedings surrounding the Videogate case. The interplay between the legal service's responsibilities and parliamentary oversight is under scrutiny, with implications for the future of the investigation and public trust in the legal process.