**Parties Clash Over Proposal to Exempt Advisory Council from Asset Declarations**
In a heated session on Wednesday, members of the House institutions committee engaged in a robust debate regarding a government bill aimed at exempting the president and members of the advisory council from the obligation to submit asset declarations. This proposal, which seeks to relieve the advisory council—responsible for recommending appointments to semi-governmental organizations—from the requirements of the ‘pothen esches’ scheme, has sparked significant division among political parties.
The advisory council's role is primarily consultative, as emphasized by government officials during the discussions. They argue that since the council does not wield executive authority, its members should not be subjected to the same asset declaration requirements as public officials who hold decision-making powers. Justice ministry spokesperson Phaedra Grigoriou reiterated this point, stating, “The character of the council is advisory and not decisive.” She maintained that the current law was designed to encompass public officials and politically exposed persons who exercise authority, suggesting that the council’s advisory nature excludes it from such obligations.
Support for the amendment has come from parties such as Diko and Elam, who argue that the council's lack of executive power justifies its exemption from asset declarations. Diko president Nicholas Papadopoulos articulated this perspective, asserting that it was never the intention of parliament to include the advisory council within the asset declaration framework. He described the current requirement as a legislative oversight that needs rectification.
Conversely, opposition to the bill was spearheaded by the left-wing party Akel, which expressed concerns regarding the council's influential role in the appointment process. Akel MP Constantinos Constantinou argued that the rationale for including the advisory council in the asset declaration regime remains pertinent. He stated, “From the moment it receives CVs and recommends people to important organisations, we see no reason why it should not be included in the list.”
Other parties, including Alma and Direct Democracy, expressed reservations about the proposal. Direct Democracy MP Diana Constantinides raised questions about public perception of the exemption and whether transparency should take precedence over arguments based on proportionality. Alma MP Irene Charalambides highlighted the need for stronger safeguards and clearer procedures within the institutional framework governing appointments, indicating a desire for more robust accountability mechanisms.
The committee chairman, Disy MP Demetris Demetriou, provided context for the ongoing discussions, referencing a similar proposal that was rejected by parliament in 2025. This earlier rejection was prompted by concerns from advisory council members regarding their inclusion in the asset disclosure regime. The current debate appears to echo those past concerns, with various stakeholders weighing the implications of the proposed exemption.
As the committee continues to deliberate on the bill, the future of the proposal remains uncertain. The discussions are expected to further examine the balance between ensuring transparency and recognizing the advisory nature of the council's role. Ultimately, the committee will decide whether to forward the bill to the House plenary for a vote, a decision that could have significant implications for the governance of semi-governmental organizations in Cyprus.
The outcome of this debate will likely reflect broader societal attitudes towards transparency and accountability in public service, as stakeholders navigate the complexities of governance and public trust.