Greece's government is facing renewed scrutiny over its handling of the Predator spyware scandal after a lawyer representing surveillance victims publicly contradicted claims made by the government's chief spokesperson regarding a key judicial investigation.
The dispute centers on export licenses granted for Predator, the controversial surveillance software that became the focus of a major political scandal in Greece and drew attention from European institutions over concerns about illegal surveillance and rule-of-law standards.
The latest controversy emerged after government spokesperson Pavlos Marinakis sought to defend the administration's handling of an internal Foreign Ministry investigation into the licenses. Marinakis told reporters that the inquiry had found no wrongdoing and argued that the relevant evidence had been examined by Greece's highest court.
ΔΙΑΒΑΣΤΕ ΕΠΙΣΗΣ
But Zacharias Kesses, a lawyer representing victims of the spyware surveillance operation, challenged those claims in remarks to Greek news outlet in, raising fresh questions about whether key evidence ever reached judicial authorities.
At the heart of the dispute is Yiannis Smyrlis, the former secretary-general for international economic relations at the Foreign Ministry, who signed export licenses allowing Predator to be sold abroad. Smyrlis resigned from his government position after media reports linked him to the licensing process, although he later assumed a senior position within the ruling New Democracy party.
Marinakis told journalists that Smyrlis had testified before Greece's Supreme Court and that the Foreign Ministry's internal administrative investigation had been transmitted in full to judicial authorities.
Kesses says neither claim is accurate.
Conflicting claims over what was examined by courts
According to the lawyer, there is no testimony from Smyrlis anywhere in the thousands of pages that make up the case file. He further argues that only the final report of the Foreign Ministry investigation and the export-license documents themselves were sent to prosecutors, while supporting documentation referenced in the report was never included in the judicial file.
"The truth is that there is no testimony from Mr. Smyrlis in the case file," Kesses said, adding that the court ruling stemming from the investigation also contains no reference to any such testimony.
The disagreement is particularly sensitive because the government's position has long been that Greek judicial authorities thoroughly examined the Predator affair and found no evidence warranting further action against senior officials.
The case has become a recurring political headache for Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis' government. Predator was at the center of a surveillance scandal that erupted in 2022 after journalists and opposition politicians discovered they had been targeted by spyware. The revelations triggered investigations by Greek authorities, the European Parliament and civil society organizations concerned about the use of commercial spyware within the European Union.
The latest clash concerns a separate but politically significant question: how Predator was able to obtain export approvals from Greek authorities for sales to third countries.
Official documents from the Foreign Ministry showed that an internal administrative inquiry into the licensing process was completed in late 2023 and that disciplinary proceedings were expected to follow. Yet years later, it remains unclear whether any disciplinary action was ultimately taken against officials involved in the approval process.
According to sources familiar with the inquiry, the investigation recommended disciplinary scrutiny of officials responsible for handling the licenses. That appears to contradict Marinakis' assertion that the inquiry found no wrongdoing.
Kesses has now called on the government to explain how Marinakis came to make statements that, according to him, are unsupported by the judicial record.
The lawyer also noted that access to the case file is limited to a small number of defendants, complainants and judicial officials, raising further questions about the source of the government's information.
