The Republic’s highest-profile corruption trial in decades reached a decisive turning point on Wednesday as the Nicosia Criminal Court set 17 February 2026 as the date for its verdict on former House President Demetris Syllouris.
Syllouris and former AKEL lawmaker and land developer Christakis Giovanis stand accused of conspiracy to defraud the state and abuse of power, following a 2020 Al Jazeera undercover exposé that brought down the island’s multibillion-euro “golden passport” scheme.
The Prosecution’s closing arguments, delivered by Charis Karaolidou of the Law Office, painted a picture of a systemic subversion of the rule of law, where the second-highest-ranking official in the state allegedly acted as a fixer for irregular citizenship applications.
Rebuttal of ‘unfair trial’ claims
The final hearing was dominated by the Prosecution’s forceful rejection of defence claims that the proceedings were an “abuse of process.” Karaolidou dismissed assertions of a distorted trial as “bordering on the absurd,” specifically addressing the defence’s grievance over the non-summoning of lawyer Andreas Pittadjis as a witness.
The Law Office argued that the defence was attempting to create a “veneer of injustice” by presenting Pittadjis as a crucial witness while simultaneously framing him as a central protagonist of the scandal. “If there were genuine gaps in the Prosecution’s case, the defence would not need such extensive and paradoxical arguments to highlight them,” Karaolidou told the court.
The Cabinet and ‘withheld evidence’
A critical friction point in the trial has been the role of the Law Office itself. The defence argued that Deputy Attorney General Savvas Angelides faced a conflict of interest because he sat in the Cabinet that approved the contested passports.
However, the Prosecution effectively integrated this context into their rebuttal, asserting that the Cabinet’s decisions were based on “targeted distortions.” Karaolidou maintained that when Angelides served as Defence Minister, the executive was kept in the dark regarding the true nature of the investments. Crucial details—such as the fact that required payments had not been made—were allegedly withheld by the defendants, meaning the Cabinet’s approval did not legitimise the underlying illegalities.
Direct intervention vs. institutional role
The Prosecution’s narrative moved beyond the Al Jazeera footage to detail what it described as Syllouris’s “active intervention” in the administrative machinery. Rather than a passive institutional figurehead, the Prosecution alleged Syllouris coordinated the “expediting” of specific applications, such as that of an investor named Gornovsky, whose rejected file was allegedly resubmitted without new evidence following political pressure.
The Al Jazeera legacy
The case remains a significant test for the Cypriot justice system following the 2020 scandal that forced the abrupt termination of the investment programme. The Al Jazeera footage, which showed Syllouris and others offering to help a fictitious Chinese investor with a criminal record, sparked international condemnation and mass protests in Nicosia.
The court has reserved its decision until 10:00 on 17 February, when it will rule on charges including conspiracy to defraud the Republic and influencing a public official.
Read more: