A parliamentary hearing into Greece’s Predator spyware scandal descended into open confrontation on Wednesday, as ruling New Democracy lawmakers voted to block the key witnesses from testifying, prompting PASOK, SYRIZA and the Communist Party of Greece (KKE) to walk out of the session in protest.
The Institutions and Transparency Committee, where New Democracy holds a majority, was asked by opposition parties to summon three figures central to the scandal: Tal Dilian, the Israeli businessman behind Intellexa, the company that developed the Predator surveillance software; Grigoris Dimitriadis, former secretary general to the prime minister and nephew of Kyriakos Mitsotakis; and Yannis Smyrlis, former secretary general of the Foreign Ministry. The requests had secured the required two-fifths of committee members needed to make the summons mandatory under parliamentary rules.
New Democracy nonetheless moved to block them. Speaking on behalf of the ruling party majority, senior MP Makis Voridis argued that Dilian and Dimitriadis do not qualify as public figures under Article 43A of the Parliamentary Rules of Procedure, and therefore cannot be compelled to testify. Voridis noted that Dimitriadis no longer holds public office, and that Dilian had previously been summoned in November 2022 but had not appeared. On Dilian’s recent public statements pointing to the Greek government and intelligence service as partners in the deployment of Predator, Voridis dismissed the opposition’s request as a degradation of the committee’s work, saying that summoning someone simply because they gave an interview set a damaging precedent. He added that the move was driven by communications strategy rather than genuine investigative intent, before leaving the chamber to attend another committee session.
Committee chairman Thanasis Bouras subsequently announced that the committee had voted not to summon the witnesses requested by the opposition, confirming the outcome opposition parties had warned was a foregone conclusion from the outset.
PASOK lawmaker Panagiotis Doudonis called the ruling party’s position a massive indication of guilt, adding that there was one political leader obsessed with the wiretapping scandal, and that leader was Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis. He challenged the majority’s public figure argument directly, noting that the committee had itself summoned both Dilian and Dimitriadis in 2022 without any question arising over their status. On behalf of PASOK, he announced the party’s withdrawal from the session, accusing the majority of violating the constitution.
SYRIZA’s Dionysis Kalamatianos agreed, describing the majority’s position as an abuse of parliamentary procedure and a confession of guilt. He cited European Court of Human Rights case law on the definition of a public figure, arguing it clearly applied to both men, and called on New Democracy to reverse course before the session concluded. The Communist Party’s Manolis Syntychakis called New Democracy’s arguments hollow and pretextual, saying the masks had fallen and that the revelations about the surveillance operations were extremely serious. SYRIZA and the Communist Party subsequently joined PASOK in walking out of the session.
As the confrontation unfolded inside the committee room, Dimitriadis chose to weigh in from outside it. In a post on X that is likely to further inflame opposition sentiment, the prime minister’s nephew noted that he had already testified twice before the committee and once before the Supreme Court, and asked pointedly how many more times he was expected to appear.
Έχω ήδη καταθέσει δύο φορές στην Επιτροπή Θεσμών και Διαφάνειας και μια φορά στον Άρειο Πάγο με την ιδιότητα του μάρτυρα.
Πόσες φορές είναι αρκετές στους ιθύνοντες της αντιπολίτευσης;
Θα συνεχίσω με την ίδια αξιοπρέπεια. pic.twitter.com/KQ8WvrDwuu
— GDimitriadis (@grigoris_d) July 8, 2026
The procedural battle comes at a sensitive moment for the government. Former Prime Minister Antonis Samaras has filed a formal request with the Supreme Court over his own surveillance, adding a significant new dimension to a case the government has long sought to characterize as the work of four private individuals acting alone. That position rested on findings by then-deputy Supreme Court prosecutor Achilleas Zisis, whose conclusions have since been challenged by subsequent court proceedings.
