Ex-bar association president admits prior knowledge of ‘Sandy’ allegations

Christos Clerides disclosed on Wednesday that he was aware of allegations linked to the ‘Sandy’ case years before they became public.

Speaking to local media, the former Bar Association president said material was brought to him during his tenure by his brother and fellow lawyer Nikos Clerides, who was representing ‘Sandy’ at the centre of the case.

He said he immediately advised that a formal complaint be submitted to police due to the gravity of the claims.

“We referred Nikos to take the matter to the police. He had told me he would do so. In the end they did not proceed,” he admited.

The complaint was never filed, with Nikos Clerides later citing fears for safety.

Christos Clerides said he lacked the authority to act independently without a formal report but had intended to escalate the matter through institutional channels once proceedings began.

“It was a matter for investigation by the competent authorities, I could not act unilaterally,” he insisted.

The material, which he described as extensive though not complete, reportedly included hundreds of messages and references to serious wrongdoing.

“I was shocked. Judges were involved, processes related to the issuing of decisions, matters of bribery and other very serious allegations which needed to be investigated by the police,” he said.

The revelations come amid an escalating dispute triggered by journalist Makarios Drousiotis, who last week published claims alleging an organised ‘Rosicrucian’ cabal involving political figures, judicial actors and other officials, with ‘Sandy’ presented as a key witness.

All individuals named have rejected the allegations, while former judge Michalakis Christodoulou, accused of raping ‘Sandy’ when she was a minor, has denied wrongdoing.

Christos Clerides warned that the delay in pursuing the case risks undermining any investigation.

“Everyone will say they covered up the case. It must definitely be clarified externally by foreign experts,” he said, adding that authorities should have already acted decisively to secure evidence.

He argued that “search warrants should have already been issued, electronic data seized and telecommunications records obtained without delay.”

He also stressed the importance of protecting the central witness.

“For me it is unacceptable, in the 21st century, for there to be a witness with evidence who does not testify because they fear for their safety. It means we do not have a state!”, he exclaimed.

Separately, he confirmed he had been shown part of the material under strict confidentiality as early as 2020, estimating that the full dataset could include between 900 and 1,000 messages.

Some of the content, with apparent consent, was shared with a non-governmental organisation, though he said no meaningful action followed and potential conflicts of interest later deemed the body incapable of pursuing the matter further.

Responding to criticism on Sigma TV, that individuals, including himself, who had knowledge of the material may bear legal responsibility for not reporting it, he dismissed such claims as unfounded.

“This is nonsense about criminal liability,” he said, rejecting suggestions of wrongdoing and criticising speculation surrounding the case.

“I recommend that those who write these things go to Netflix to write scripts for fantasy films, I can’t really comment on the nonsense of every stupid journalist,” he retorted.

He also backed calls for an independent investigation, suggesting the appointment of a small team of criminal investigators, potentially including a foreign expert, to ensure credibility and avoid perceptions of bias which have “historically damaged the republic’s standing in previous corruption scandals”.