A “rigged” investigation into Boris Johnson’s behaviour in connection with Partygate will put the future Prime Minister under a lot of strain and may result in the removal of his right to serve in the Commons.
In response to the Commons privileges committee’s investigation into whether Mr. Johnson lied to Parliament on Covid rule-breaking in Downing Street, Mr. Johnson’s allies claim they are “incandescent.”
When lawmakers return from their summer break in September and Liz Truss or Rishi Sunak moves into No. 10, the committee will begin its job.
The Johnson supporters denounce the inquiry as a “witch hunt” and a “constitutional farce,” pointing out the seven committee members’ history of anti-Boris statements and contending that it “changed the goalposts.”
If the polls are accurate and Ms. Truss is elected as the next prime minister, the problem will probably provide a challenge for her since, while being a Boris supporter, she won’t want to appear to try to stoke old animosities in the early days of her leadership.
The panel will call Mr. Johnson to testify about his knowledge of staff meetings that took place in Downing Street while the building was under lockdown.
The panel will also look at a number of events, some of which the Prime Minister did not even attend.
After the Sue Gray report revealing the No. 10 violations was published, he amended the record, having previously told the Commons that no regulations had been infringed.
The committee vowed to carry out its job despite Mr. Johnson’s resignation as prime minister, saying: “The House assigned the committee with this task and we are required to carry out.”
We don’t set our own agenda, in contrast to other committees.
The committee’s head, Labour MP Chris Bryant, withdrew from the investigation earlier this year after he “vocally criticised” the Prime Minister for lockdown violations.
The new committee chairman, former Labour deputy leader Harriet Harman, tweeted in April that Mr. Johnson and the then-Chancellor Rishi Sunak “misled” the Commons by accepting a fine for breaking Covid regulations.
Other members of the panel have, however, also voiced criticism about the events that seem to prejudge the report’s conclusion.
Andy Carter of Warrington South, who stated that Mr. Johnson’s resignation was “in the nation’s best interests” and that it was “the right thing to do,” and Alberto Costa of South Leicestershire, who claimed that Mr. Johnson had experienced a “breakdown in good governance,” are two of the four Conservative MPs who sit on the committee.
Laura Farris, a representative from Newbury, is a supporter of Mr. Sunak who, after accusing the Prime Minister of overseeing a culture that encouraged “unethical and destructive parties,” voted against Mr. Johnson in the Commons confidence vote.
Before the Prime Minister resigned, Sir Bernard Jenkin, the fourth Tory MP on the panel, met Mr. Johnson in Downing Street and told him: “It’s finished.”
In contrast to being “driven out like Donald Trump clinging to power,” he advised him to “leave with dignity.”
Because Mr. Johnson’s resignation as prime minister made the inquiry “unnecessary,” Tory MP Sir Bill Cash has proposed a resolution calling for its cancellation.
The motion claims that the decision to look into the situation was “now unwarranted and should be repealed,” and is supported by MPs including former Tory leader Sir Iain Duncan Smith.
‘This is a staged investigation by a spiteful committee, which is dressing up a witch hunt in the garb of a legitimate inquiry,’ a supporter of Mr. Johnson said.
Calling it a sham understates the situation.
The ally continued, “Boris has already been the subject of a Sue Gray and police investigation, and he has apologised for accidentally misleading Parliament.
He has previously expressed his regret to the House, therefore it would have been insane for him to have done it intentionally.
According to a Committee representative, neither the regulations nor the terms of reference have changed. Process is the focus of the Committee’s inaugural report.
One of the senior Commons Clerks wrote the background paper on contempt.
“Every Clerk is totally politically neutral.” Additionally, the report includes the counsel of illustrious former Court of Appeal Judge Sir Ernest Ryder.
To demonstrate its dedication to transparency, the Committee has made this information public.