**STROVOLOS, CYPRUS** – Former Mayor of Strovolos, Andreas Papacharalambous, has vehemently refuted allegations of financial mismanagement levelled against him by the current municipal administration. The controversy centres on a €2 million debt owed to the municipality by a private company, which the current authorities claim has ballooned to €2.3 million under Papacharalambous’ tenure due to his handling of the matter.
The current Strovolos Municipality, in recent public statements, asserted that the ex-mayor had mishandled the substantial debt, which reportedly pertains to outstanding entertainment tax. They contend that a crucial decision made by Papacharalambous around 2020, which involved temporarily suspending a portion of the repayment schedule, was undertaken without the requisite approval from the municipal council. This decision, they argue, has contributed to the debt's escalation beyond its original sum.
Responding to these accusations, Papacharalambous has presented a robust defence, asserting that his actions were strategically aimed at preserving the entire sum owed to the municipality. He explained that at the time of his decision, the private company was in the midst of sensitive negotiations with its banking partners concerning loan restructuring. According to the former mayor, a rigid insistence on immediate, full repayment of the municipal debt would have undoubtedly precipitated the company's bankruptcy.
Papacharalambous argued that by granting the company a degree of financial leniency, its operational capacity was maintained. This, he posited, was a pragmatic approach designed to prevent a complete collapse of the business, which in turn would have jeopardised the municipality's ability to recover any of the owed funds. The ex-mayor's stance suggests a calculated risk taken to safeguard a larger financial interest, rather than a dereliction of duty.
The discrepancy in the figures – a €300,000 increase in the debt – has become the focal point of the public dispute. The current municipality views this growth as evidence of poor financial stewardship, questioning the legality and prudence of the debt repayment moratorium. Conversely, Papacharalambous frames his intervention as a necessary, albeit potentially unpopular, measure to avert a far more detrimental outcome for the municipality's coffers.
This public exchange highlights a significant rift in the financial governance of Strovolos, casting a spotlight on the decision-making processes employed during Papacharalambous' term. The implications of these allegations and counter-arguments extend beyond the immediate financial figures, touching upon transparency, accountability, and the complexities of municipal debt management in challenging economic climates. The ongoing debate is likely to prompt further scrutiny of the municipality's financial practices and the historical handling of such obligations.