Through the minutes of the lengthy testimony of the Auditor General before the Commission of Inquiry into the naturalizations – which were made public yesterday – it is clear that the members of the committee are particularly concerned – and expressed it to Odysseas Michaelides – that their own conclusion is possible be perceived by a section of the public as inferior or incomplete or less critical of the government's handling of the two reports published by the Audit Office and in particular in relation to the report on the dozens of naturalizations of casino executives and Wargaming. In short, the Commission of Inquiry is afraid of comparing its own finding with the two relevant reports signed by the Auditor General. And this was obviously the main reason why the members of the committee expressed dissatisfaction and disagreement with the decision of the Audit Office to publish these reports and it can be safely concluded that this was the reason for the attorney general's furious reaction to the publication of the second exhibition (company executives) by Mr. Michailidis.
Following what we mentioned in the report of the Saturday edition of “F” about the study of committee members to ask questions to the Auditor General with a clear political to pro-government tone and criticism of the conclusions of the Audit Office, we publish today the points within the practices that indicate the concern of members of the investigators that the publication of the Auditor General's reports will in fact put them in a very difficult position vis-τι-vis the public, although their own conclusions on the aspects examined by the Audit Office differ or conflict with those of the Auditor. controller.
Indicatively, we mention that the chairman of the committee, Myron Nikolatos, stated at some stage of the discussion that the conclusions of the Auditor General in his second report (some of which he read to everyone) “are in my opinion strong conclusions, which create huge impressions. and in public opinion. If tomorrow the Investigative Committee “continued Mr. Nikolatos,” reaches different conclusions, contrary perhaps to your own Mr. Michaelides, the public opinion will not come, which thirsts for cases of corruption and entanglement etc, will not come to say that this Research Committee acted in a discriminatory manner in order to serve other people's motives? ' He added, wondering: “There is no such risk from the publication of your report, within the framework of your constitutional rights and powers (s.s. in the opinion of other officials …) but there is no such risk that committee to be exposed in the eyes of the people, after these conclusions of yours? »…
Elsewhere, Dimitra Kalogirou, in a rather strict tone, asked Mr. Michailidis “why did you come to the decision (s.s. report), in the midst of our own naturalization investigation, and announced the issues for the 18 naturalizations?” . He added that “today you have provided us with various information, which is very useful for us, but you have announced your own conclusion, although you could give us a testimony, so that we can get further information, so that we may substantiate further things, which you do not you could have, since you do not have access to the files and more complete conclusions were drawn “.
Responding, Odysseas Michailidis said that the powers of the Audit Office are not canceled, they are not suspended, they are not weakened, they are not set aside, they are not affected in any way by the appointment of an Investigative Committee. Commenting on the position of members of the research that he should not publish his conclusions while the research is operating, Mr. Michailidis replied that “there is no legislation that says that if you have a committee, the findings of the Audit are not published.”