Anastasiades counterattacks: Anti-Corruption Authority investigation into "Mafia State" is "unlawful"
The former President dismantles seven recommendations for criminal offences and accuses the Authority of violating essential rules of law.
Anastasiades: "Deception and influence" behind "Mafia State" findings
In an extensive written intervention, former President of the Republic Nicos Anastasiades attacks the findings of the Anti-Corruption Authority regarding Makarios Drousiotis's book "Mafia State", attempting to dismantle one by one the recommendations for possible commission of criminal offences. As reported by Politis, this intervention comes following the publication of the Authority's announcement, dated 16 June 2026.
Anastasiades argues that the conclusions of the Inspection Officers, which are based on "the balance of probabilities", are founded on erroneous connections of facts, incorrect interpretation of evidence, or unreliable testimony. At the same time, he claims that during his deposition he was not presented with the claims and evidence that led to the seven recommendations, with the result that his right to be heard was violated.
"Succumbed to the prevailing atmosphere"
The former President levels strong criticism both at the manner of evaluating the book's content and at the credibility of the author, reintroducing the question of the presumption of innocence. Independent institutions, he notes, should not be influenced by the "prevailing atmosphere" and public condemnation.
The Authority, according to its own announcement (Paragraph 80), clarifies that the claims in the book that are not included in the announcement "have not been proven even to the minimum degree required in investigative procedures". Anastasiades uses this very formulation to argue that the core of Drousiotis's allegations collapses.
Two and a half years of investigation — and what was found
Following an investigation lasting two and a half years, with a cost of 1.5 million euros, hearing of 150 witnesses, and submission of evidence from 41 legal and governmental departments — a total of 793 documents — the Authority rejected, according to Anastasiades, all claims regarding unjust enrichment, embezzlement of money or property, and harmful actions against the Republic of Cyprus.
These claims, he emphasises, "collapse and are rejected by the Authority as unsubstantiated and legally unfounded".
Refutation chapter by chapter
In the first chapter of the book, "The Oligarch and His Fief", Anastasiades points out that the Authority makes no reference whatsoever to the so-called "Rimobolevev Law" — that is, the claim that it was enacted through the intervention of the former President in exchange for financial consideration. This, he argues, means that the claim was not proven "even to the minimum degree" and constitutes "fiction".
Similarly, in the subsections "Guiding Justice" and "Influencing judges", the Inspection Officers included no reference to the former President, a fact which Anastasiades interprets as tacit acquittal.
However, in the subsection "The Arrest of Rimoboleveva", the possible commission of the offence of "trading in influence" through acceptance of "unjust advantage" is recommended. Anastasiades characterises this conclusion as "unacceptable", attributing it to "deception or inexcusable negligence" on the part of the Officers who connected "claims entirely unrelated to actual facts".
In the second chapter, "The Offshore President", the Inspection Officers found, according to Anastasiades, "nothing objectionable or true" in the claims concerning the purchase of a plot of land by his wife from the Archbishopric. Furthermore, the allegations of alleged embezzlement of 450,000 euros from contributions of the Focus organisation during the 2008 presidential elections and an additional 100,000 euros for the 2009 European elections "were demolished" both by the Authority and by the criminal investigation of Attorney General Costas Clerides.
The question about Drousiotis
In his intervention, the former President raises the question of why Makarios Drousiotis himself was not investigated by the Authority. He characterises the author and the "followers of nihilism" as those who, selectively using the Authority's "findings", "distort the truth, adhering to the verdict of popular courts".
According to Anastasiades, the Authority — despite the fact that it rejected in their entirety the claims regarding corruption, unjust enrichment, and harmful actions — chose to maintain seven recommendations for possible offences, based on a lower level of proof than that required by criminal law. This choice, he argues, constitutes a violation of "essential rules of law" to his detriment.
Source: Politis