The internal dispute within the Democratic National Movement (DEK) has intensified, with party president Andreas Themistocleous rejecting allegations of financial opacity and challenging the authority of four officials who withdrew their support for him.
In a statement issued on Monday, his side claimed that a financial review had taken place as scheduled and demanded the return of receipt books allegedly held by the party’s general organisational secretary. It also confirmed that lawyers are now handling the dispute over access to DEK’s website, email account and social media platforms.
The statement reached Politis through a personal message from the party’s press representative rather than DEK’s official digital channels. This appears consistent with Themistocleous’ earlier claim that he no longer has access to the party’s online platforms.
Financial review held on 7 August
According to the statement, DEK unanimously decided on 15 June 2026 to request its financial statements for 2025 and for the period up to that date in 2026.
The meeting took place at the party’s headquarters in Limassol on 7 August, with DEK’s accountant presenting the financial records and answering questions from those present.
“No audit was obstructed. No question was prohibited. No information was concealed,” the statement said.
The Themistocleous camp therefore rejected suggestions that the party’s financial management had not been subjected to scrutiny, insisting that the records were made available for examination.
Demand for receipt books
The statement also made a specific allegation concerning DEK general organisational secretary Andreas Sotiriou.
It claimed that Sotiriou had not handed over receipt books for money collected on behalf of the party, which were allegedly still in his possession.
He was called upon to deliver the books immediately, along with any other financial documents or supporting records belonging to DEK.
“Anyone demanding transparency must hand over the evidence,” the statement said.
Authority of four officials challenged
The dispute also concerns the authority of Nikos Charalambous, Prokopis Prokopiou, Marios Thrasyvoulou and Andreas Sotiriou, who announced that they were withdrawing their support for Themistocleous.
While acknowledging that the four are members of DEK’s Political Bureau, the president’s side rejected their ability to act collectively as the bureau itself or issue decisions on behalf of the party.
“They are not DEK. They do not represent DEK. They cannot replace DEK,” the statement said.
The Themistocleous camp maintained that the president neither convened nor recognised the four officials’ meeting as a formal session of the Political Bureau. It therefore argued that any decisions taken at that meeting cannot be presented as official DEK decisions.
The position deepens an existing disagreement over the Political Bureau’s composition. The four officials have described themselves as members of a six-member body, an account disputed by the president’s side.
Questions over absence from meeting
According to the statement, the four officials met away from DEK’s headquarters on 6 August, one day before the party accountant presented the financial statements.
The Themistocleous camp questioned why they did not attend the 7 August meeting to examine the records, hear from the accountant and raise any concerns directly.
“It is not democratic scrutiny to stay away from the official meeting and attempt to put the Movement or its president on trial through social media,” the statement said.
It repeatedly asked why the four officials, if they had concerns about the party’s financial management, did not present them to the accountant during the meeting.
Lawyers handling dispute over digital platforms
The statement placed particular emphasis on control of DEK’s website, social media accounts and email system.
It argued that the platforms were created for the party and “are not the personal property of anyone”, repeating the allegation that Themistocleous has been denied access to them.
“The president of DEK clearly cannot be deprived of access to the official platforms of the Movement he leads,” it said.
DEK said the issue had now been referred to its lawyers and would be pursued “through every lawful means”.
The fact that Monday’s statement was distributed through personal communication by the party’s press representative, rather than through DEK’s official accounts or website, further highlighted the continuing access dispute.
Disagreement over reported contribution
The statement also raised questions about a contribution made by the president of DEK’s agricultural organisation, who is also a member of the Political Bureau.
The Themistocleous camp claimed the contribution had been included in a letter sent by the DEK president to the Registrar of Political Parties concerning contributions received in 2025.
It alleged, however, that the contribution was later omitted from a separate letter sent to the registrar by the four officials.
DEK described the matter as “extremely serious”, arguing that a political movement’s financial records must be consistent and reflect the actual figures.
The statement also referred to the legal obligations governing private contributions to political parties, stressing that accurate financial reporting is a matter of legal compliance.
Themistocleous rejects opacity claims
Themistocleous concluded the statement with a personal response to the accusations against him.
“I am not afraid of scrutiny. I requested it. I am not afraid of questions. I answered them. I am not afraid of supporting documents. I placed them before anyone who wanted to examine them. I am not afraid of transparency. I demand it,” he said.
He added that he would not accept the unauthorised use of DEK’s name or official platforms, nor what he described as attempts to replace the party’s institutional bodies.
“Anyone with questions should submit them through the proper institutional channels. Anyone with evidence should present it. Anyone demanding an audit should attend the audit,” he said.
The latest statement further escalates the internal confrontation that began when the four officials withdrew their support for Themistocleous, accusing him of “unconstitutional, arbitrary and opaque actions”.
Themistocleous has rejected those allegations and maintains that he has been locked out of the party’s official digital platforms.
