The Tribune

The jury is still out. Has it been an act of vengeance against a controversial former British prime minister hounded out of office by his own colleagues or a legitimate example in a democracy of holding those in power to proper account? This was the question posed indirectly by last week’s hearing of the House of Commons Parliamentary Privileges Committee which is investigating whether Boris Johnson misled Parliament over alleged breaches of the COVID-19 rules at No 10 Downing Street, which is both the office and home of British premiers.

For those fascinated by politics, the committee’s proceedings televised live were pure theatre. But for those who believe it is time to draw a line under the previous few years and move on from the pandemic it is seen as resembling a farcical pantomime. The former Prime Minister was grilled by a mixed seven-person panel of Conservative and Labour MPs chaired by a senior Labour Party member. The declared aim of the inquiry is to find out whether his statements that gatherings at No 10 adhered to the coronavirus rules and guidelines “at all times” were not only wrong but were made by him recklessly and deliberately – after the committee had originally been tasked with deciding whether he had “knowingly” misled Parliament.

If the committee finds him guilty, his political career will hang in the balance. He could be suspended from the House of Commons and be forced to face a by-election at a time when the Conservatives are deeply unpopular. But that would depend on a vote of the whole House leading to an endorsement of the committee’s findings; and this might not happen until September given that the committee is not due to report until June. Such a delay is considered by many as prolonging the agony unnecessarily.

Boris Johnson’s 52-page written defence of his actions makes clear that, while accepting he did make misleading statements at the Despatch Box over No 10 lockdown parties, he did so “in good faith” since he had been advised by his officials that these were within the rules even if some social distancing regulations might have been inadvertently broken and that some of his actions were in technical breach of the rules. He was of course entitled to rely on his officials both for information and sound judgment on the issue, since that is what officials and advisers are there for.

It seems that to many the crucial mitigation for Johnson is that, if he knew that the rules were being broken by attending social gatherings, why on earth would he have allowed it all to be recorded by No 10’s official photographer and subsequently publicised to his detriment since Partygate was one of the issues that forced him out of office last year.

To many, the whole process borders on the absurd and flies in the face of natural justice. They see it as an act of vindictiveness by parliamentary colleagues acting as a lynch mob who resent Johnson’s success as a populist politician because he appeals directly to voters and enjoyed massive support from the electorate in winning the 2019 general election with a thumping Tory majority. Furthermore, many Remainers have also never forgiven him for pushing through Brexit. Such people want not only to punish him for misleading Parliament but also to destroy him politically and ensure he will never return to lead the Conservative Party again. So there are fears that despite the formal bipartisan nature of the committee it may not turn out to be impartial.

During his cross-examination lasting several hours - part of which I watched live on TV - Boris Johnson was fully engaged in fleshing out his dossier as necessary. He was passionate, persistent and articulate in his determination to fight his corner. But one problem for him is that – deservedly or not – he has an unfortunate reputation for telling lies; or, in the famous words of a leading Tory in another context, being “economical with the truth”. In this case, however, he stated clearly and unequivocally that he had not lied to Parliament, stressing that what he said was in good faith and based on what he knew at the time. But did those on the panel believe him?

As far as I can see, despite serious doubts about the appropriateness of what has been happening, the quizzing of Johnson by the committee has at least revealed the careful consideration given by him and his staff to whether or not what they were doing was consistent with the lockdown rules. Of course, no one should reasonably have expected anything less at the heart of government. However, it looks to me that there has been a serious lack of judgment in insisting on holding farewell parties to thank staff and then calculating whether they could get away with it when the rest of the country was forced to observe excessively harsh restrictions involving life and death – a process that was made worse by heavy-handed enforcement by the police and others - and it is this which has caused so much public anger. So, in cases where there was any doubt about gatherings in No 10, the PM would have been wise simply to have stopped any which were not strictly and demonstrably work related. In such extreme circumstances how could farewell parties anyway be justified? The PM could have found other ways to thank departing staff for their service.

One can hardly conclude from all the evidence that Boris Johnson deliberately and maliciously set out to flaunt the COVID-19 rules. But, perversely – and despite criticism of the Privileges Committee as being vindictive and prejudiced against the former PM – perhaps its work has not been entirely a waste of time and effort because in one sense it has demonstrated yet again the importance of Parliament’s role in scrutinising the executive and stressing the principle that honesty, integrity and telling the truth matter in UK politics. But the country has moved on from Partygate – and surely the House of Commons should now do so as well.

GROWING PRESSURE TO BAN RUSSIANS AT PARIS OLYMPICS

Having lived in Nassau for more than two decades, my wife and I have fond memories of sharing the joy and jubilation of Bahamians at the success of the “Golden Girls” at the Sydney Olympics in the year 2000. Winning a gold medal in the Women’s 4 X 100 metres relay was a remarkable achievement by the four young athletes concerned who showed excellence on the track that brought them individual and team glory.

Since then, of course, there have been many other Olympic successes by Bahamians. Most recently – at the Tokyo Games in 2021 that had been postponed because of the pandemic - who can forget the outstanding achievements of Shaunae Miller-Uibo and Steven Gardiner in winning gold medals in their respective 400 metres races, thus giving The Bahamas a clean sweep in the event. This was truly an impressive accomplishment by any standards and made their country proud.

To use boxing imagery, Olympic success over the years has shown The Bahamas has always punched above its weight as a small country; and, thinking about this, it struck me that such is the local interest in the Olympics that it might be worth following up today my piece in this column last month about the controversy over whether Russian and Belarussian athletes should be banned from the Paris Olympics in 2024 because of the Ukraine war. It might anyway be helpful to cover it again because there seems to have been little publicity about the issue.

The arguments for and against bringing sport into politics do not bear repetition today, not least because of lack of space. But the latest development last week in the shape of a statement by Lord Coe, president of World Athletics - formerly the IAAF (International Association of Athletics Federations) - was significant. He announced that the Council had decided that Russian and Belarussian athletes will still be excluded from World Athletics series events “for the foreseeable future” due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine; and this reaffirmed the organisation’s decision in March, 2022. Thus, ahead of the Paris Olympics, World Athletics has reiterated that athletes from these countries remain prohibited from competition.

It is clear that this announcement conflicts with remarks by the president of the International Olympic Committee (IOC), Thomas Bach, who advocates the so-called neutral participation in the Olympic Games of athletes with Russian or Belarussian passports. The IOC is now exploring a pathway for athletes from these countries to return to competition under “strict conditions of neutrality.” It is not clear exactly what that means but it is feared that the IOC’s stance could bring about a boycott of the Paris Games.

Watching the TV coverage of Lord Coe’s announcement, I was struck by how calm, firm and authoritative he was, and he made a point of stressing that, since last year’s decision to impose a ban, the further death and destruction in Ukraine had “only hardened my resolve on the matter”. He is, of course, Sebastian Coe who is a two-time Olympic Men’s 1500m champion and 800m silver medallist – in the 1980 and 1984 Games – and a former British politician. He now enjoys a formidable reputation as an administrator in the realm of athletics. Among a number of prominent positions he has held, he was chair of the Organising Committee for the 2012 Olympics in London.

Interestingly, the UK Culture Secretary has commended World Athletics for its stance and has claimed this would apply pressure on the IOC. She said that now was not the time for the IOC to plot a route back into competition for Russian and Belarussian athletes funded and selected by their states. The situation in Ukraine had worsened since the IOC made its original decision to ban these athletes from the Olympics and the ban should be continued. She reiterated the point made in a letter last month from some three dozen nations – including the UK, US, Germany and Canada – that “Russia and Belarus have it in their own hands to pave the way for their athletes’ full return to the international sports community, namely by ending the war they started.”

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the IOC has fired back, saying that it is not for governments to decide which athletes can participate in which international competitions. So, the issue is expected to dominate this week’s IOC Executive Board meeting and there are likely to be further developments in the near future.

MORE BRITISH MILITARY TRAINING FOR CARIBBEAN

How good it was to learn of some new military training organised recently in Barbados by Britain’s Ministry of Defence. A course called “Managing Defence in the Wider Security Context” was attended by representatives of various Barbadian agencies and by senior officials from seven Caribbean countries including The Bahamas. The event was co-hosted by the Barbados Defence Force.

The focus of the week-long course was on assessing local security issues in an international context. It was delivered by the UK’s Defence Academy which is known for providing top quality higher education for Britain’s armed forces and government departments as well as for international partners working in the fields of defence and security. In the words of the Chief of Staff of the Barbados Defence Force, this training “demonstrates the UK government’s commitment to our region, our values and our interests”.

Commenting on the need for co-operation, the British High Commissioner in Barbados was quoted as saying “Recent international events have taught us that no nation stands alone in managing its security and all levels of government in defence and security sectors have many threats to combat. This course has provided an excellent opportunity for different security agencies from different countries in the Caribbean to come together and deliberate best practice”.

It seems to me that this is another example of much needed collaboration in the Caribbean, with Britain showing its renewed commitment to build on its long-standing relationship with the region in relation to defence matters – and, as I said in an earlier article, long may such teamwork and involvement flourish.