So the issue now is whether Savvas Angelides resigned and then un-resigned? Whos queuing up to resign after him? Thats not the issue. The issue is the staggering contempt for the public. For their intelligence. Which manifested itself in the Assistant Attorney Generals announcement when he was forced to respond to the days-long buzz about his resignation.

The President of the Republic himself immediately denied the report with a statement, yet Angelides watched the buzz from Sunday onwards and only felt the need (I deem it appropriate to clarify, he said) to issue an announcement on Wednesday. What was he doing all those days? Mulling it over? Wasnt he sure whether hed resigned or not? Was he trying to decide, and finally concluded four days later to agree with the President that I never submitted my resignation to the President?

He could have said that on day one and not allowed the rumours to hang in the air. But lets say he needed time to think. Why the rest of it? Does he want to join the ranks of officials sacrificing themselves for the country? Many times, he says, he expressed concerns about the challenges facing the institution he serves, and the fact that I did not carry out my thoughts or intentions regarding resignation is due to the reaction and concerns of my colleagues in the Law Office about our collective responsibility towards the public interest and the country.

They worried at the Law Office that if Savvas Angelides left, the system would collapse. So he sacrificed himself, along with his colleagues, for the good of the country. When will our state officials stop with these jokes? Were talking about specific issues raised against the Assistant Attorney General here, not theories about responsibility towards the public interest.

For the public interest, Savvas Angelides should have resigned last summer, the moment the European Court of Human Rights ruling was issued on the termination of prosecution of a rape suspect. It was his decision, and the ECHRs references to him were damning. Not so much the termination of prosecution as what it attributed to Mr Angelides. It said his decision and stance blames the victim and exposes her to secondary victimisation through incriminating, moralising and sexist stereotypes, whilst failing to examine critical evidence that could indicate absence of consent. It also said the Court considers that certain phrasing and arguments used by the prosecutors and, ultimately, by the Assistant Attorney General in assessing the present case embody prejudices and sexist stereotypes capable of undermining womens confidenceas victims of gender-based violencein the justice system.

You dont get to read such a judgment from the ECHR and play the saint. And indeed, accuse other institutions over cases brought against you. Because Mr Angelides did that as well the day before yesterday. Regarding the complaints against him pending before the Anti-Corruption Authority. Hes obliged by virtue of his position, he said, to show tolerance towards the non-completion of investigations within a reasonable time, but his tolerance must not be construed as acceptance of a situation that undermines the foundations of the rule of law.

The delay in Anti-Corruption Authority investigations undermines the foundations of the rule of law, but not the delay in Law Office decisions. Fair enough. Each institution accuses the otherthats how they operate and thats how they reinforce their devaluation in citizens eyes. But doesnt it undermine the foundations of the rule of law that the ECHR attributes to him prejudices and sexist stereotypes capable of undermining womens confidenceas victims of gender-based violencein the justice system?

If Savvas Angelides didnt resign after those ECHR references, then what are we even discussing? To pass the time? Thick-skinned.