Annex 151A
Letter to the Chairman of the Committee
on Standards and Privileges from Finers Stephens Innocent, Solicitors
We act for Mr Jaffer Kapasi.
We have seen a copy of your letter to Mr Kapasi
of 20 June 2000, and trust, therefore, that you will have seen
the correspondence passing between our client and Elizabeth Filkin
and indeed ourselves and Mrs Filkin. You may be aware that our
client is a Leicester based accountant and a prominent businessman,
well respected within his field, his home town and religious community.
He is the Deputy Lieutenant of Leicestershire and Officer of the
British Empire.
We are writing to your as Chairman of the Committee
on Standards and Privacy of the House of Commons in order to express
our client's and our grave concern as to the way in which this
matter is being dealt with as regards our client. You will be
aware that he is an independent third party, not under investigation
by Mrs Filkin, but that he is being put to considerable time,
expense and anxiety as a result of Mrs Filkin's requests for him
to meet with her to discuss Parliament's enquiry into the MP Keith
Vaz.
We have asked Mrs Filkin for her confirmation
as to whether or not she knows Sir Peter Soulsby, the former Leader
of Leicester City Council, or indeed had met him prior to this
enquiry in our letters dated 9, 16 and 21 June—we expect
that you have seen copies of these letters—but despite her
protestation to the contrary in her fax of 21 June, she is refusing
to provide this information. This is giving considerable concern
to our client. If she has an interest arising out of any dealings
with Sir Peter Soulsby then she should declare it. Her impartiality
(both perceived and actual) is vital to both the credibility and
validity of her enquiry. She must, if you will, be like Caesar's
wife—beyond allegation or reproach. What was an original
and quite understandable hesitancy on the part of our client in
meeting with Mrs Filkin, has developed into what now clearly appears
to be a justified concern.
It seems to us apparent that there are no clear
rules or regulations which deal with the treatment of third parties
in such investigations and that effectively, Mr Kapasi is at risk
of being used as pawn through his forced involvement in this matter
by Sir Peter Soulsby. Our client is not being investigated, Mr
Vaz is. If Sir Peter Soulsby makes allegations concerning Mr Vaz,
then he should be asked to appear and state the reason, not our
client. The sum total of the allegations seem to be a reported
telephone conversation between Mr Kapasi and Sir Peter Soulsby
which Sir Peter Soulsby asserts to have recorded and reported
to the local authority who took no action contemporaneously. Mr
Kapasi denies the conversation. Therefore, the "evidence"—although
I am not sure one should properly and safely refer to information
of such poor quality as evidence, as its probative value is so
low—should not safely be relied upon.
If there is to be an examination of this conflict
between Sir Peter Soulsby and Mr Kapasi, then it is clearly appropriate
that Mr Kapasi should be given the opportunity to cross-examine
Sir Peter Soulsby. In the circumstances we should be grateful
if you would sent us Mrs Filkin's agreed procedures dealing with
third parties if any exist, together with details of allegations
or information which she believes our client has not responded
to.
Sir Peter Soulsby's motives in attempting to
involve our client in this matter are of course of great concern
to our client and highly relevant. Allegations have been made
about him by Sir Peter Soulsby and suggestions have been made
by Sir Peter Soulsby and reported in a Sunday Times article
on 14 May 2000 (copy enclosed), that Mr Kapasi may be involved
in or have some knowledge of the matters which have been raised.
It is our client's belief that there has been a long standing
political grudge by Sir Peter Soulsby against Mr Keith Vaz, evidenced
in numerous newspaper articles since 1994.
In addition, our client has a number of specific
concerns about the apparently unorthodox procedure adopted by
Mrs Filkin:
1. our client has not made any complaint
against any Member of Parliament;
2. our client has always answered any questions
put to him by Mrs Filkin quickly and honestly;
3. that she threatened to arrest him (for
further details see the attached exchange of correspondence) which
concerningly even though now denied and clarified by Mrs Filkin,
raises a concern at how this so fundamental matter could have
been so misunderstood;
4. despite making no complaint or being involved
in any way, our client's reputation has been adversely affected
by newspaper reports which were inspired/contributed by Sir Peter
Soulsby;
5. Mr Kapasi is not a Member of Parliament,
yet it now appears that he is being investigated; and
6. Mr Kapasi is being offered no opportunity
to examine Sir Peter Soulsby.
Our client has no desire to be deliberately
unhelpful nor to delay Mrs Filkin's enquiry. To this end he has
taken the step of preparing a statutory declaration of his understanding
of the matter, a copy of which I enclose. I have also enclosed
all correspondence in this matter, as it is clearly a matter you
should be fully appraised of.
We have also sent a copy of this statutory declaration
to Elizabeth Filkin.
It would be helpful, I would be quite happy
to amplify my client's situation in a meeting with either yourself
and/or the Committee.
If I have caused any inconvenience in my delay
in responding to your letter, please understand that I have had
a bereavement.
26 June 2000
| 
