The targeting of the Supreme Court prosecutor has now taken the form of character assassination with fake news even involving his selection process.

The opposition, some media and even the bar association are attacking the Supreme Court prosecutor for the decision not to withdraw the case of watching having judged that no new sufficient evidence for this has emerged.

And they base these attacks – which go beyond the bounds of the criticism they invoke – on a narrative of relations with the government and the Maximou Mansion as to his selection for the position he currently holds and from which he is leaving next month due to retirement.

What are they all saying? They imply that he is making decisions because he was appointed and therefore has an obligation to the government that put him in that position.

But is that so? The answer is no. The government introduced a law (Giorgos Florides) which introduced the principle of internal evaluation and selection of judges and prosecutors for promotion by their own colleagues.

A proposal to the government, however, is a change and a significant one in terms of the process of electing the leadership of the judiciary.

So in June 2025, the senior judges and prosecutors took part in a vote and at the meeting of the administrative plenary of the Supreme Court, the top candidates emerged. The process was attended by the Supreme Court’s advocates, vice-presidents and prosecutors.

So, for the position of Supreme Court prosecutor, the first to come in – yes, you guessed right – was Konstantinos Tzavellas, whom the Council of Ministers placed in that position by confirming the selection.

Simply put, the government at least partially changed the process, gave the supreme judges and prosecutors the opportunity to vote on who they thought was suitable, and in the case of Constantine Tzavellas accepted and ratified the proposal.

Therefore, the appointment may be made by the government, but in the case of Constantine Tzavellas it was essentially a proposal by the judiciary officials themselves. Never mind that his term of office is also expiring and there is no question of its renewal.

And that’s not all. The other lie arises from a half-truth and is even bigger. What do those who are targeting the Supreme Court prosecutor say? That he was a supervisor of the EIS and signed off on surveillance including persons who were also targets of the illegal Predator software, implying that there was identification and knowledge.

Half truth, since he was indeed a prosecutor in the NSA and signed off on recordings that were legal and not legalistic, as they characterize them, and a big lie about the identification operation using the illegal software.

It’s not about the person. It is the manner, it is the process followed. It is the message that some people want to send to judges and prosecutors that if they make decisions that they don’t… like, they will hang them on pegs, they will be vilified at the end of their term, as they have done in other cases and they want to do it again with political opponents.

It is the message that this and that reminds us of… mafia ways since it is essentially an attempt to present the top prosecutor in question as an example to… avoid.