Refusal to disclose donors once again undermined trust in state institutions

The negative response of the Auditor General—after consultation with the Legal Service—to the request of the Parliament of Cyprus for a named list of donors for parliamentary oversight once again demonstrated why public trust in state institutions is at a critically low level.

The decision was taken against the backdrop of a leaked video in which the Social Support Fund appears as a structure allegedly interacting with entrepreneurs and “investors,” receiving donations in exchange for promoting requests. Despite public outcry, the Attorney General’s Office and the Auditor General concluded that donor data should not be disclosed, even for the purposes of a parliamentary investigation.

Thus, parliamentary oversight was effectively blocked, citing the protection of companies’ personal data. Critics of the decision point out that such an approach places private interests above transparency, accountability, and the proper functioning of democracy.

Particular concerns are raised by the fact that:

• political parties are required to disclose their donors, while the fund is not;
• companies with business relations with the state may have simultaneously made large donations;
• refusal to provide data is permitted by law only in cases of threats to national security or foreign policy—which was not substantiated in this case.

Earlier, the Audit Service had indicated that contributions to the special fund create conditions for special relationships between donors and the executive branch, giving rise to justified suspicions of conflicts of interest and possible corruption. The video only intensified these concerns, clearly showing how donations could be used to obtain priority attention from the authorities.

Nevertheless, the Attorney General’s Office concluded that there are “no legal grounds for disclosure,” despite the fact that in 2023 the fund managed to raise €6.4 million. According to critics, this effectively legalizes opacity and the lack of oversight over the executive branch.

In the current situation, responsibility is once again shifted to parliament—which, using its constitutional powers, can demand disclosure of information and elevate the issue to the political level. Calls are increasingly heard to liquidate the fund and transfer its functions to other state bodies, as the current governance model is claimed to create more problems than it solves.

Against this backdrop, an image is becoming increasingly clear of a system of power that does not consider it necessary to be accountable to society, where transparency is perceived as an obstacle rather than the foundation of democracy. Concerns extend not only to the behavior of the executive branch, but also to the role of institutions which, according to critics, are failing to meet their responsibilities, deepening the crisis of trust and democratic instability itself.