This isn’t a story about a fish tavern…

The political storm battering the Democratic Rally (DISY) is simply the turmoil that had long been brewing beneath the surface at the party’s Pindarou headquarters, now erupting into the open.

For at least the past two years, Averof Neophytou had been publicly building a particular narrative: Annita got where she is, at least in part, because of decisions I made.

“If I hadn’t withdrawn my candidacy for re-election, would Annita be president of DISY?” he would pointedly ask.

He was even blunter about her election as House president in 2021: “She wouldn’t have imagined it even in her wildest dreams.” Immediately adding, "She vindicated my choice. She is a very good House president.”

Although he insisted that everything he did was “out of duty,” the succession of statements about his contribution to her political rise, and, above all, the way he chose to remind people of it, pointed directly to an outstanding debt of political gratitude. To a strong sense that something was owed.

That debt grew further with his contribution to her re-election as House president on June 4. And it foreshadowed the head-on confrontation to come, which, in reality, had merely been put on hold.

The end of the uneasy standoff

The relationship between Averof Neophytou and Annita Demetriou has weathered countless storms. Even at its best, it could hardly have been described as anything more than an “armed truce.”

It began with condescension, developed into a kind of paternal political guardianship, moved into suspicion and estrangement and, after 2023, settled into a fragile balance of mutual deterrence.

Averof played a decisive role in her election as House president in 2021. After his own defeat in the 2023 presidential election, her rise to the leadership of DISY was presented as a solution that would unite the party.

But the relationship never truly recovered. From the upper reaches of Pindarou, the former president remained a powerful and experienced force, regularly taking swipes at his successor’s choices. The new leadership, meanwhile, sought to establish its own authority in a party that had yet to free itself from its old dependencies.

Most importantly, it had not healed the wounds of the divisions caused by the 2023 presidential contest.

What looked like coexistence was, in fact, a conflict postponed. And Pyxida did not create the rift. It simply gave it a name, a location and a menu.

The “secret dinner”

Averof Neophytou first publicly disclosed the dinner on Monday, Sept. 28, a day after announcing his candidacy.

He spoke of a dinner at a well-known fish tavern in Nicosia and, above all, of an assurance he claims to have received from Annita Demetriou’s “closest of close” associates, in her presence: if he helped secure her re-election as House president, they would subsequently stand alongside him in the presidential election.

“You, who have the influence, make sure we get Annita re-elected as House president” […] “from now on, you’ll deal with me” […] “in the presidential election, let’s go forward united, alongside you…”

His response, as he recounted it, was, "I will do my duty for the good of my party and the country, and I need neither favors in return nor promises.”

Chris Panayiotou denies that any such agreement existed, describing the attempt to present a dinner as a deal concerning the presidential election as “ridiculous.”

Averof, on the other hand, insists that his account is accurate: “I never lie. And Ms. Demetriou heard this too.” She, he says, “made no comment. Neither yes nor no.”

For the sake of argument, let us accept Averof’s version. What exactly is he describing?

A former leader of the country’s largest party attending a private meeting with a publisher who, as Averof himself made a point of clarifying, was not meeting him in his capacity as a publisher.

In what capacity, then? And, more importantly, in what capacity could he assure him that, if he helped get Annita Demetriou re-elected, “we will go into the presidential election united, alongside you”?

But there is something else: Averof himself insists that none of this influenced his decisions.

“Neither dinners nor menus determine my political decisions.”

“I need neither favors in return nor promises.”

“Everything I did, I did out of duty.”

Let us, then, take him at his word.

On June 4, he simply did his duty. Annita Demetriou was re-elected as House president, with crucial support from Fidias Panayiotou’s Direct Democracy party. A meeting between the two had taken place beforehand, with Averof helping to arrange it.

He later made sure his own contribution did not go unnoticed: “Could anything have made DISY supporters happier than her re-election as House president for a second five-year term? Ask others how they blew apart the unity they now invoke.”

The holes in the narrative

And this is where things become difficult.

Long before we heard the fish-tavern story, Averof had already begun publicly expressing his belief that a “game” was being played at Pindarou, from which he was being excluded.

On Aug. 13, referring to the party’s internal opinion poll, whose findings favored Annita, he said he had been informed neither of the intention to conduct it nor of its results.

“These matters are too serious to be handled this way,” he concluded.

When DISY’s unity was raised immediately afterward, he replied, "Unity is of paramount importance […] But unity has rules, not games.”

Keep that word: “games.” An interesting sequence follows.

The existence of the poll became known in mid-July, and by Aug. 1 the media was discussing its findings. What followed was a progressively developing strategy on Averof’s part.

On Aug. 4, he attacked Nikos Christodoulides over the Cyprus issue.

On Aug. 13, he said that if the Cyprus issue could be “unlocked” and a settlement proposal emerged, he would stand beside him. Otherwise, he would make his own decisions.

On Sept. 16, he requested a meeting with the president before New York, repeating that if there were a strategic agreement, “he will find me beside him.”

On Sept. 23, he explicitly linked the outcome in New York to his own candidacy.

And on Sept. 27, he announced it, putting the deadlock over the Cyprus issue at the forefront: “The window of hope […] unfortunately remained closed.”

The following day, Pyxida enters the picture.

Out comes the deal he insists he never made. The promise he assures us he never took into account. And the rhetoric shifts to “games,” being “caught off guard” and, ultimately, “betrayal.”

Here lies the central contradiction.

If there was no expectation, what exactly was the deception? If the promise did not matter, why does it matter so much now that it must be disclosed in every detail? If he simply did his duty, what exactly does he consider to have been betrayed?

There is more.

Averof says that “Chris did not want to see me in his capacity as a publisher.” Asked in what capacity he met him, he gives no answer.

Before that, he had repeatedly made a point of describing him as Annita Demetriou’s “closest of close” associates. The suggestion is left hanging, and the insinuation does its work without needing to be spelled out.

Meanwhile, Annita Demetriou is portrayed as present but silent.

“She made no comment. Neither yes nor no. Nor did she tell her closest of close associates, "You cannot make commitments on my behalf or speak for me."

What he does not tell us is what he himself did.

Hearing a third person promise him support in the presidential election, with the DISY president herself sitting opposite him in silence, did he turn to her?

Did he ask whether she agreed? Whether what had just been said reflected her position? Whether she was indeed bound by what her “closest of close” associate appeared to be promising on her behalf?

Ultimately, Averof Neophytou presents himself as the victim of an agreement while simultaneously denying that he was a party to it.

He wants betrayal without a deal, deception without an expectation, and a broken promise without a prior commitment.

All of these, however, are difficult to fit into the same narrative.

The paradox: Annita was there, yet remains out of the picture

There is, however, a striking paradox.

Although Annita Demetriou is, according to Averof’s account, at the center of the disputed dinner, she remains almost entirely out of the public discussion.

In an interview with Kathimerini in early September, she denied that there was an agreement with Averof concerning 2028.

But when he later gave his detailed account, claiming she was present when Chris Panayiotou spoke to him about joining forces in the presidential election, Annita avoided answering even the simplest factual question: What was she doing at that table?

“All in good time,” she said, referring to protecting the party and respecting democratic procedures.

The truth is that she was not pressed particularly hard to answer the obvious questions either.

Her responsibility goes beyond protecting herself.

Annita Demetriou is president of the country’s largest party and president of the House and has now said she will seek DISY’s nomination for president of the Republic.

When public questions arise about who may speak politically on her behalf, convey assurances concerning her or influence party decisions, the answer is not a matter of her private life. It concerns how the leadership operates politically and institutionally.

This is where the question of Chris Panayiotou takes on a strictly political dimension.

At Pindarou, party officials are making specific claims about his substantive involvement in party affairs, including the selection of candidates for the electoral ticket.

Those making these claims have a responsibility to substantiate them.

But once such claims exist and are now joined by a former DISY president’s allegation that the same person approached him to discuss political commitments concerning the party president, the question is legitimate and must be answered: What exactly is Chris Panayiotou’s political role?

If such a role exists, where does his authority come from, and to whom is he accountable?

Finally, there is Annita’s responsibility toward the party itself.

The confrontation with Averof did not begin on Sept. 28. It was known, was growing and had been signaled in advance.

Particularly after DISY’s election result, party officials describe a leadership increasingly confident and, in their assessment, inclined to settle old internal scores. That is their interpretation and must be reported as such.

The outcome, however, is there for all to see.

Averof Neophytou did not suddenly emerge as a problem. His displeasure was public, the personal scores were visible, and his challenge to the leadership had begun long before.

The leadership had a responsibility to manage that reality politically. It failed.

Instead of a workable internal balance, the former president became an independent force confronting the current leadership.

This does not absolve Averof of responsibility for any of his choices. But it assigns Annita the share of responsibility that comes with her position: for the unity she invokes, the questions that remain unanswered and the suspicions of informal influence which, if unfounded, she has every reason to dispel clearly.

Because, ultimately, this is not a story about a fish tavern.

It is the story of two politicians invoking unity even as their conflict undermines it, speaking of institutions while informal understandings, personal scores, insinuations and unanswered questions accumulate around them.

And somewhere between his “betrayal” and her silence stands the Democratic Rally.

In the end, it is the party that risks being left to pay the bill.