Would You like a feature Interview?
All Interviews are 100% FREE of Charge
To their supporters, the seven members of Congress on the Privileges Committee and their small team of counsel and clerk investigating whether Boris Johnson deceived the House of Representatives are “Servants of Congress.” , performing the tasks assigned to them by the House of Commons.
But for Johnson’s allies, the probe is a partisan “show trial” designed to shroud the former prime minister’s possible return to front-line politics.
While the truth is clearly closer to the former than the latter, the Privileges Commission’s investigation has the nature of a criminal trial, as a bitter battle rages between Mr Johnson’s camp and one of Congress’ ethics watchdogs. is tinged with
The battle culminated later this month when the former prime minister appeared before a committee of four Conservatives, two Labor and one SNP to present evidence he knew about the Downing Street lockdown party. I’ll submit it. Or ruin his comeback prospects.
Ironically, his legal team, led by Lord Panic, the KC who opposed Mr Johnson in the Supreme Court over the then-Prime Minister’s illegal suspension of Parliament in 2019, had no witnesses, as in the actual trial. requested the commission to conduct cross-examination. .
In a newly released legal opinion on the investigation by Lord Panic and fellow barrister Jason Pobboi, they cite the 1992 precedent of Robert Maxwell’s sons Ian and Kevin Maxwell, whose lawyers Granted permission to submit to Commons’ social security board investigation into the missing pension fund of his father.
Lord Panic and Mr Pobjoy said:
“The commission notes that, unlike Kevin Maxwell and Ian Maxwell, Mr Johnson has not faced a criminal trial. But of course he faces very serious allegations and potentially harsh penalties. doing.”
this discussion, I The Commission is advised on legal matters by Sir Ernest Ryder, a former Judge of the Court of Appeals.
Mr Johnson will be able to have his lawyers attend oral evidence sessions scheduled for the week beginning March 20, but legal counsel will not be able to speak directly to members of Congress.
The House of Representatives states that “a legal counsel cannot speak on behalf of the subject of an investigation in oral evidence, and a witness must address the committee itself acting on behalf of the House.”
Deviations from precedent require a vote of the entire House to change the rules.
But one of the demands from the Johnson camp that the Privileges Committee agreed to was to hand over shocking WhatsApps and accuse the former prime minister and his family of witnesses who gave terrible testimony about what happened inside No10 during partygate. be specific to the lawyer.
Not all identities will be made public, but Johnson will be able to know which staff members have testified against him.
I I also learned that none of the witnesses asked Mr. Johnson to keep his identity secret.
The investigation itself began as a simple “term of reference” from the Commons last April, but has since taken off in its own right, with clerks and parliamentarians turning detectives to follow testimony from WhatsApp and No10 staff. lives an extraordinary life.
Johnson claims the survey is biased. That’s because he claimed he relied heavily on an investigation into Partygate by Sue Gray, who is now resigning as Kia Starmer’s chief of staff.
In reality, however, the Privileges Committee has received far more messages, electronically, than Mr. Gray has obtained, thanks to an unprecedented data dump from the Cabinet Office in November under the leadership of Rishi Sunak. You can now access a cache of emails, and other documentary evidence.
Originally, the document submitted to the committee last August, while Mr Johnson was still in Downing Street, was heavily redacted. But her committee chair Harriet Harman and her fellow committee members had access to the full and raw, brutal details of Partygate.
As I As revealed in January, the commission investigated a so-called “above party” allegedly hosted by Mr Johnson’s wife Carrie in November 2020, but did not fully investigate Mr Gray. bottom.
The data transfer led to a number of “new leads” that the Commission followed up with, and some of the evidence was handed over in secret meetings away from Westminster village scrutiny.
Members of Parliament and their close-knit team of staff toured the interior of Downing Street on February 21 to see if Mr Johnson was aware of the party going on from his top 11 apartment. bottom.
in their curse report Last Friday, MPs said, “From under the stairs leading to Mr. Johnson’s apartment at the time, there was a line of sight to the foyer of the press office where these rallies took place, and that Mr. Johnson had it. confirmed,” he said. Had he been in the forecourt during the meeting, he would have had to proceed further down the stairs and through the intervening antechamber. “
Even Johnson’s own No. 10 staff member revealed he had a hard time defending that he didn’t know the party was going on when coronavirus restrictions were in place. Some arrived last Wednesday, when the committee was meeting for a final decision. Interim report.
The report was meant to present all the evidence to Mr Johnson before he appears before the committee this month. I believe it is possible.”
But the former prime minister claimed he was actually “correct” in misleading MPs because the commission failed to prove that they knew they were breaking the rules. .
A source close to Johnson said I On Tuesday: “Privilege Commission defends Boris Johnson. I didn’t.”
Lord Panic and Mr Pobjoy, in their latest legal opinion, written last October but only recently published by the Commission, said: Some of them made personal criticisms of his actions…
“The allegations against Mr. Johnson are serious and the potential penalties are severe. In such circumstances, it is hoped that the Commission will guide itself in the right light of the principles involved and follow the procedures it considers fair and just. It is particularly important to ensure that the
But the Tory MP isn’t looking good for the former prime minister as the date for his evidence draws near.
Some consider it ridiculous for Mr Johnson’s allies to claim that the commission is trying to concoct a conspiracy to undermine Brexit.
The Conservative Backventure said: And at the time, Boris Johnson brandished this as a justification of sorts.
“So the line Boris and his supporters are taking now is ridiculous. It lacks logic…how they think this will get him off the hook is beyond me.”
“From their interim report on Friday, it looks pretty serious for Boris, and I don’t think what he and his supporters spewed about Sue Grey had anything to do with it.
“And reading between the lines of their reports, he must seriously impress in front of them in order to avoid conviction.
“I don’t think they are his enemies on that committee, but they are people who have a professional reputation for doing the right thing.”
The former minister suggested Johnson could actually face harsher penalties if he tries to challenge the commission’s credibility.
They added: I oppose any sanctions. “