Marina Economides
In an exclusive interview, former President Nikos Anastasiades opens up about his new book, 'The Sycophant', and the ongoing feud with journalist Makarios Drousiotis. As Drousiotis continues to attack his legacy with scathing accusations, Anastasiades pulls no punches in his response, explaining why he waited until after his presidency to address the controversy head-on. In a revealing conversation, he dives deep into the personal and professional history with Drousiotis, shedding light on the motivations behind the accusations and the integrity of the journalist's claims. This candid interview delves into the back-and-forth of a bitter public dispute, offering insights into the former president’s efforts to defend his dignity and set the record straight.
Q: What do you aim to achieve with the release of The Slanderer?
– To finally restore the truth.
Q: Looking back, do you now think it was a mistake not to address the accusations made by Makarios Drousiotis sooner, instead of waiting until you reached the point of writing a book?
– No. Should I have ignored the responsibilities of governing and solving real problems just to chase after a slanderer? After my term ended, and I fully grasped the scale and severity of the accusations and supposed crimes attributed to me, I felt it was essential—not only to present what I accomplished during my presidency but also to defend my dignity and legacy. I would never have written a book if this were merely about a few articles. I’ve never responded to defamatory publications with lawsuits. In 43 years of political life, I’ve only filed one defamation suit—and that was against Mr. Drousiotis in the past. Beyond that, even while I was in office, I never once considered legal action against anyone.
Q: The content in the books, of course, not only harmed you personally but also indirectly damaged the country’s reputation. Given this, if you chose not to respond for the reasons you mentioned, why didn’t your close aides step in to challenge what was being said?
- The defamatory references and accusations of “criminal” acts were directed at me personally—not at my aides or collaborators. So, it was a personal matter. I must admit that, due to time constraints and not fully grasping the extent of the malicious fabrications, I didn’t give it the attention it warranted. Naturally, this also had a negative impact on the country. What should really concern us—and what I explore in the Sycophant—are the timing and motives behind the publication of his books, his lack of credibility, the fabrications that followed, and the reissue of one of his books with entire chapters and claims removed, which clearly exposes the intent behind the slanderous narrative.
Q: He has clarified that the removal of one chapter was a mistake, and in the next edition, he brought it back...
– The decision to republish the book and reinstate the third chapter was not a correction of an error, but a calculated move once it became evident that his credibility was eroding. At the same time, several claims that had exposed him were quietly removed—and notably, they were neither acknowledged publicly nor restored in that edition.
Q: You know, many argue that the real issue for the public isn't Makarios or his analysis, but the events described during your presidency.
– But the book doesn’t just attempt to analyse Makarios—it also targets those who embrace his narrative. The issue isn’t only Makarios himself, but those who take part in this kind of public trial by opinion, blindly following his lead. Let me remind you: some even claimed I walked away from Crans-Montana out of concern for my re-election in 2018. They questioned why I would leave if the proposed solution was truly fair. But if it had been fair, would I have lost the election—or been erased from history? Or would I have become the leader who delivered a solution after the 1974 invasion?
The Professional Relationship with Makarios Drousiotis
Q: Your relationship with him, as you mention, began in 2004. Was he working without pay until your election?
– He assisted in various ways, but it wasn’t a formal, salaried arrangement. It was more of an ad hoc relationship—he offered assistance when and as it was needed.
Q: You say that after his contract ended, he set out to take revenge on you. Yet, he had no financial ties to you when he supported you before your election...
– Any financial arrangement during the pre-election period was minimal—nothing compared to the generous compensation he received while serving in Brussels.
Q: What was Mr. Drousiotis’s job during your presidency?
– He was a collaborator on various matters. In his extensive resignation letter, he lists many studies he conducted, including investigations against Panicos Demetriades and other various matters.
Q: There are letters in which he mentions journalists allegedly being paid by a specific lawyer and raises concerns about personal relationships. Was this part of his role?
– He considered it his responsibility, as part of his assignment, to keep me informed about anything he believed could potentially harm the Presidency.
Q: There have been questions about whether you asked your collaborators to present such information to you...
– I’ve already addressed this. What we should focus on is not just what he wrote about the President, but also about his colleagues. He doesn’t spare anyone within the institutions. He criticizes everyone—Kostas Kliridis, whom he frequently turned to for help, Odysseas Michaelidis, and even his fellow journalists, whom he accuses of pretending not to see the exploitation of the system for money. And let’s not even get started on those he accuses of prostituting themselves for financial gain.
Q: Did you ask him to stop? Did you tell him this was not how his work should be conducted?
– He presented these as reports on his actions. Should I comment on Mr. Drousiotis’s reports? The real issue lies in what he wrote and continues to write. While he accuses the President of corruption, his own writings reveal the extent of his own unethical behavior.
Hasikos, Petridis, and the Jhe Low Case
Q: The book contains references to alleged confessions from your aides/collaborators to Makarios Drousiotis. Did you ever consider that these individuals might have been sources for Drousiotis?
– Not at all. In the case of Socrates Hasikos, the references appear posthumously. In his 2022 book The Mafia State, Drousiotis claims to have recalled conversations with the late Hasikos. One version suggests Hasikos confessed to him that the President does whatever he wants and "thinks Cyprus is his." In another, he claims this was said in 2013 before Konstantinos Petridis, while in yet another, he states it occurred after Hasikos resigned in 2017. If you examine the book, you’ll notice numerous contradictions—altered texts, practices, and deleted phrases. It’s clear this is a fabricated work designed to attack the President for revenge. Later, when he realized he could profit from this narrative, he continued to add to it, leading to a second edition. Despite claiming that new material was added "by mistake," he failed to mention what had been removed. For instance, in ten separate instances, he alludes to an "invisible hand" influencing the granting of citizenship to the fraudster Jho Low. Yet in the eleventh reference, he arbitrarily concludes that the only "invisible hand" could be that of the powerful Nicos Anastasiades. Meanwhile, he had access to the findings of the Kalogirou report, the Nikolatos report, Socrates Hasikos's sworn testimony to Mr. Nikolatos, and his interview on Sigma, where Hasikos explicitly explained how citizenship was granted to this fraudster.
Q: Did you ask your collaborators who are mentioned in the book, such as Averof Neofytou, Ioannis Kasoulidis, and Konstantinos Petridis, why they didn’t step forward to deny what was written and attributed to them?
– I wonder if they read it.
Q: I have the feeling that they did read it.
– I’m not sure if they read it, but they definitely must have been called to testify at the Anti-Corruption Authority, and there they will provide the necessary responses.
Q: How do you feel about testifying at the Anti-Corruption Authority about this matter?
– Very comfortable, in the sense that I will present the facts as they are, supported by evidence, as they are documented in the book 'Sycophant'.
Q: Do you have confidence in the process and in the head of the Authority handling the case?
– Absolutely. Why wouldn’t I? While some are attempting to suggest that a conviction is inevitable due to the "verdict" of the court of public opinion, I have complete trust that the officials will base their decisions on facts, not rumors.
Q: What would a conviction from the start mean for you?
– Out of respect for the institutions of my country, I won’t comment while the investigation is still ongoing. However, I will point out that up until 2017, I had his support, as shown by the recommendations and studies he provided to me. It’s also worth noting that, as he claims, the first book was largely based on his personal diary.
Q: The answer is that after Crans-Montana, he realized the situation...
- Why didn’t he publish the book after Crans-Montana then?
Q: Obviously, because writing a book takes some time.
– If Mr. Drousiotis claims to be a person of integrity and honesty, as he asserts, why didn’t he resign if he had been keeping a personal diary since 2013 and was aware of all that he writes about? Why didn’t he submit his resignation in 2014, or report me while he was seconded to Mr. Stylianides and working for him? Why didn’t he accuse me of being a corrupt president in 2018, in order to prevent my reelection and the continuation of corruption in the state? Why did he wait until Christos Stylianides wasn’t reappointed and he lost his job? In his 2015 letter, when he was already in Brussels and requesting his wife’s transfer, he mentioned that he didn’t want a 12-year relationship to be tarnished by misunderstandings. If I were corrupt, why would he want to maintain that relationship?
Q: Was the reason he left the Presidential Palace because of the book he wrote about Russia, or were there other reasons?
– When he told me that he was going to write a book about Russia and its role in the Cyprus settlement, I told him that he couldn’t do that while serving in the presidency, as it would create a conflict with a permanent member of the Security Council, especially considering the attempt to resume talks. On the day of Russia's national anniversary, while I was speaking at the Russian Embassy, I was informed that Mr. Drousiotis and Mr. Stylianides were presenting his book, which blamed Russia. When I warned him against doing so, he told me, "If I see any reaction, I will submit my resignation." In fact, in one of his letters, he thanked me for ensuring that he did not remain unprofessional.
Q: Was it your suggestion that he should work with Mr. Stylianides?
Yes, absolutely. Initially, he was assigned as an assistant to Christos Stylianides when he was elected MEP. In one of his letters, he mentioned that it wasn’t reasonable for a presidential associate to join 4-5 others as an assistant to an MEP. He asked me to stay in the Presidency until October, when Stylianides would be appointed to go to Brussels.
