Filenews 27 February 2025 - by Fanis Makrides
Today's meeting of the parliamentary committee on institutions seemed like a bad joke.
The focus was on the mechanisms of the State to impose sanctions on six companies that were involved in the kickback scandal of the Pafos Sewerage Board.
Based on the conviction of the Assize Court on 18/2/2015, these construction companies received kickbacks totalling more than €1 million, however, nothing was ever done to allow these legal entities to have substantial sanctions or even to be excluded from public contracts in the future. It's been 10 years...
The issue was discussed last year (14/2/2024) again at a meeting of the parliamentary committee on Institutions, where weakness was revealed. A year later, however, that is, today, nothing substantial has changed.
ETEK is still adjudicating the case with executives of these companies without completing the process, while the Council for the Registration and Control of Building and Civil Engineering Contractors (a legal entity governed by public law), which is the competent body of the State to discipline contractors, could not do anything substantial.
Moreover, the Exclusion Committee, as proved after a question-remark by MP Andreas Pasiourtidis, did not intervene ex officio, as provided by law, to exclude any of the six companies from contracts with the state. In fact, as has been said today, the Exclusion Committee operates in a caretaker composition, without the Ministry of Finance appointing new executives.
All these negatives were highlighted at today's meeting, where executives of ETEK, the Council for the Registration and Control of Building and Civil Engineering Contractors and the Exclusion Committee were invited, among others.
The only positive thing is that, as Irene Neophytou, who in her capacity as an executive of the Legal Service participates in the Registration and Control Council (vice-chairwoman), said, legislation is being prepared to overcome the obstacles and enable the body in which she participates to be able to handle cases, as well as that of the companies involved with the kickbacks of SAPA.
It should be recalled that since June 2015, the Registration and Control Council has failed to adjudicate the vast majority of cases against the contractors involved in the SAPA scandal and their technical directors. It relieved them of any liability for abuse of process.
As explained last year, the Council as a legal entity governed by public law consists of executives who have a term of office of 30 months, while each official can have up to two terms. This fact was invoked as a mitigating circumstance to explain that disciplinary proceedings could not continue with a different composition of the Board (see length of term of office and limitation on reappointments).
The MPs-members of the parliamentary committee on Institutions expressed dissatisfaction with the incident, did not shy away from self-criticism, and talked about considering the possibility of creating another body so that it can intervene in such cases.
Characteristic was the position of Zacharias Koulias, who spoke of the establishment of a permanent disciplinary body to handle such issues. The same was mentioned by MP and chairman of the Committee on Institutions, Dimitris Demetriou. "Let's legislate, make it a single body to look at everything and finish. Why are we kidding? Everyone's credibility goes a long way. And private individuals come out and make fun of us. They tell us that they are the victims of the case. They tell us that they helped the institutions...", he said characteristically towards the end of the meeting.
On the basis of the disputed case of the Assize Court for SAPA, the convicted Vergas and Malikidis had received from the contracting companies that contracted with SAPA the total amount of €520,000 and €498,000, respectively (after their arrest, most had been returned). Persons associated with these companies were prosecution witnesses in the case. At the time, it was made clear that even if they were not criminally charged, they would be held liable for disciplinary action.
