Drousiotis questions Christodoulides over hiring ‘Sandy’ to presidential office

Journalist and Volt candidate Makarios Drousiotis has raised further concerns over the handling of his allegations, claiming on Wednesday that President Nikos Christodoulides must clarify the circumstances under which a figure known as “Sandy” was hired at the presidential office.

In a detailed public statement issued on Wednesday following a cabinet decision to send evidence for forensic examination abroad, Drousiotis argued that the process so far “begins on the basis of the belief that the allegations are false” and criticised what he described as delays and procedural shortcomings.

He pointed to “deliberate leaks to the press with the aim of creating prefabricated impressions” and said the approach undermines confidence in the inquiry.

Central to his intervention is a direct challenge to the president, with Drousiotis stating that Christodoulides is “called upon to provide clear answers regarding the circumstances under which Sandy was hired by the presidential office immediately after his election”, adding that clarification is also needed on “whether there is any involvement of his own in the issues raised for investigation”.

The government has opted to forward material to Europol for technical analysis, particularly concerning the authenticity of electronic messages which form a key part of the evidence.

Drousiotis, however, rejected the notion that Europol’s involvement guarantees independence.

“There is no ‘European police officer’ with an independent investigative capacity,” he said, explaining that the agency relies on officers seconded by member states.

He further alleged a conflict of interest, claiming that the head of Cyprus’ liaison office at Europol, George Karkas, is involved in legal proceedings against him.

“It is obvious that neither he nor any of his Cypriot subordinates can be involved in any way in the investigation of the present case, due to an obvious conflict of interest,” he said.

Despite the international referral, Drousiotis stressed that no independent criminal investigators have been appointed domestically.

As a result, he said, “the investigation continues to be conducted by the Cyprus police, which is already involved in the case and operates under the instructions” of George Savvides and Savvas Angelides”, who he claims are themselves under scrutiny and “directly involved” in the allegations of corruption.

This, he argued, “raises serious questions as to the independence and impartiality of the process”.

A key point of contention is the method being used to verify digital evidence.

Drousiotis insisted that any attempt to authenticate messages without examining the original devices falls short of basic forensic standards.

The government has defended its approach, with justice minister Costas Fitiris stating that evidence will be sent to The Hague for analysis and that conclusions will guide any next steps, including whether to appoint an independent investigator.

He indicated that findings are expected after the Easter period.

The case has drawn in multiple figures named in the allegations, all of whom deny wrongdoing.

Among them is Michalakis Christodoulou, who has rejected claims of raping a minor and corruption made against him and said he is willing to cooperate fully with authorities.

Lawyer Christos Clerides, who has provided testimony and material to authorities, expressed concern about the handling of the case and the potential risks faced by those involved.

He maintained that the messages in question appear authentic, stating that “there are so many and the way they are written, not even the best screenwriter could have constructed them”.

Drousiotis reiterated his call for a fully independent inquiry, stating that he is “the first to call for the investigation of the allegations by truly independent and impartial criminal investigators, with full respect for the principles of the rule of law”.

Only such a process, he argued, “can ensure the disclosure of the truth and the restoration of public trust”.