You are here: Parliament home page > Parliamentary business > Publications and Records > Committee Publications > All Select Committee Publications > Lords Select Committees > Standards of Conduct in the House of Lords > Standards of Conduct in the House of Lords
The conduct of Lord Ahmed Contents

Chapter 2: Claims and allegations in D’s and L’s accounts

The statements of D and L that they had been told in April 2018 that Ms Zaman had a reputation as a liar and had made false allegations against J

29.In their written statements, both D and L explained that, as responsible journalists, they took steps to verify Ms Zaman’s account by contacting their sources. L did so at the request of D. D did so in order to satisfy himself before agreeing to publish W’s draft story about Ms Zaman and Lord Ahmed.

30.D wrote in his statement that when he spoke to his sources “all of them quite separately stated that the woman in question who was making the complaint was a habitual liar and that I should not trust what she says in relation to Lord Ahmed.”

31.L also contacted his sources to discuss Ms Zaman, her relationship with her family and “what people thought about her”. His sources reported that she “had made similar false allegations of sexual assault against a man called “J” and some others.” He told us at interview that he did not mention Lord Ahmed to his sources.

32.We discussed this process with L at interview.28 In his statement he said, “Normally, this sort of information is gathered by approaching individuals in their social circle and asking questions about that person.” In our interview he explained that his sources were people still living in Rochdale who, he said, were “people who knew her and knew about her life”. His sources did not include Ms Zaman’s family, her social circle or people living near to where Ms Zaman has lived in London for many years.

33.He said that one of his sources had told him that Ms Zaman had made false allegations against J. We asked him what his source had said about how the allegations had been shown to be false. He replied, “I can’t, like, answer that question but these were the views of the people.” I suggested that his information might be considered only to be “gossip and rumour”, which he agreed was “[a]bsolutely right.”

34.He also described the information he received from his sources about Ms Zaman being a liar:

“I asked some people. They must have asked some other people and they said that she lies all the time [ … ] They did not, like, outrightly tell me that she’s a liar, but like when you have a conversation with somebody and you make a picture of somebody and randomly you talk to people. So this is what I understood.”

35.In his statement, D wrote that L had told him about his sources’ information that Ms Zaman had made similar allegations about J previously. He also said that one of his own sources had mentioned J but that “proper information was came through by L”.

36.D said he thought he made notes of his conversation with L on his phone at the time but that these may have been lost when his phone was damaged—no copies of notes were provided to us.

37.L was not the only journalist who sought to verify Ms Zaman’s story by speaking to sources and contacts. In the course of his Newsnight investigation and mindful of the standards required for national broadcast, U spoke to Ms Zaman’s friends and family. U uncovered no suggestion that Ms Zaman had a history of making false allegations.29

38.Ms Zaman’s father, Mohammed Zaman, rejected the allegation that she was a habitual liar, saying “She had very good circle of friends in Rochdale and as a family we have very good reputation and there’s no question about that. I haven’t heard. Nobody has ever said to me.” He was sure that if there had been these allegations, he would have heard:

“we’ve got a really good neighbourhood, good community; everybody knows me; I know everybody. So, normally, if this happen, people will come and make some comments or, you know, “I feel sorry for you” …or say that, “I’ve heard this. Can you confirm this has happened?” Nobody has been in touch with me. There’s nobody made any comments or anything.”

39.Ms Zaman’s sister, R, similarly said that if Ms Zaman had had a reputation as a liar, it would have got back to the family because where they lived was “a very small sort of knit community, everybody knows everybody and stuff” and that if it had done “the family would not speak to her, they would disown her; they wouldn’t want anything to do with her”.

40.As set out in my first report on the conduct of Lord Ahmed, Ms Zaman told others about her experiences with J, including the police in October 2016, Southall Black Sisters in early February 2017 and Lord Ahmed in February 2017. These were all contacts made in or near London, where both Ms Zaman and J were based. Ms Zaman told us that she had spoken to members of her family about J but that they would not have spoken about it to anyone outside the family. There is no evidence that the police took any action on her complaints in 2016.

41.In her correspondence with W, Ms Zaman did not mention J. He is not mentioned in the draft article sent to D on 10 April, and nor is there any suggestion from D that he knew of J through W.

42.Ms Zaman continued to include allegations against J in her dealings with the Metropolitan Police in 2018. She did not mention him in the letter she circulated to parliamentarians and others in 2018.

43.The information from the police provided to us by Ms Zaman and by the Metropolitan Police contain no suggestion that Ms Zaman’s complaints against J had been found to be false, only that there was insufficient evidence for the police to proceed any further.

Analysis

44.We know that Ms Zaman did make allegations to the police in London against J. We have received no evidence to suggest that the police concluded these allegations were false. J was not referred to in the letter the police sent to Ms Zaman in November 2018, explaining why they were not proceeding with their investigation into Lord Ahmed or S.

45.There is no evidence that Ms Zaman discussed her experiences with J with anyone she might know in Rochdale other than her family members. By his own account, L did not speak to Ms Zaman’s family or “social circle”. In his response to the draft factual report, Lord Ahmed referred to other material which indicated Ms Zaman had spoken to S’s landlady about her experiences with J. However, I note that S and J were both based in South East England; this therefore does not indicate that others in Rochdale would have been aware.

46.There is no evidence that J was discussed between D and W.

47.In his interview L said that he had been told that Ms Zaman was a liar, but then retreated from this position to say that this was an assumption based on what people said to him. He made it clear that he did not probe the allegation that his sources had been told that the complaint Ms Zaman made against J had been shown to be false.

48.We only have their word for it that D and L made any enquiries of their sources in Rochdale in April 2018. However, we have good evidence that W, G30 and U were investigating her story at this time. Though they were also not able to provide contemporaneous notes of any enquiries of those they spoke to, they all gave much more detailed accounts of the checks they made to satisfy themselves of Ms Zaman’s reliability as a witness, including talking to friends and family, which D and L did not.

49.Absence of evidence does not necessarily denote evidence of absence, but in circumstances when it would be natural for evidence to be forthcoming, the lack of such evidence tends to suggest it did not exist.

Summary of evidence and analysis

50.The only evidence that local sources told L in April 2018 that Ms Zaman had made allegations against J that had been shown to be false comes from L, who says he told D in 2018 and said the same in his statement of June 2020. W was not informed.

51.The only evidence that D and L made enquiries of sources in Rochdale in April 2018 or at any other time is their unsupported statements to this effect.

52.Lord Ahmed knew of Ms Zaman’s complaints about J, because Ms Zaman had put them in her letter to him in February 2017. There is no suggestion that he told anyone in Rochdale about them.

53.There is no evidence that the police investigated J before April 2018 or subsequently and found the allegations made by Ms Zaman to be false.

54.The Newsnight broadcast, publicising Ms Zaman’s allegations about Lord Ahmed, did not result in any of the sources coming forward with their evidence that Ms Zaman had made false allegations against J and that they had told D and L.

L’s statement that he had been told in April 2018 that Ms Zaman was estranged from her family

55.In his statement, L wrote, “My sources came back to me and informed me that she was estranged from her family”. This information was presented to him as part of his seeking to verify Ms Zaman’s story on behalf of D in around April 2018.

56.Ms Zaman addressed this in her written response to the additional material presented by Lord Ahmed saying, “he clearly is lying when he says I have always been estranged from my family before this documentary”.

57.Lord Ahmed’s reply to her response picked up on this issue. He presented Ms Zaman’s response as showing that she was “lying now or she has lied previously” as in a letter to the police in September 2019 she had told the police that her family had turned against her, including preventing her from attending her brother’s wedding.

58.We discussed this with Ms Zaman, who told us that there was a period of estrangement following the Newsnight broadcast in February 2019.31

59.Mr Zaman agreed that there had been a period following the broadcast where Ms Zaman had “isolated herself”, he thought due to the pressure she was under following the broadcast.32

60.Ms Zaman’s sister, H, agreed that the Newsnight broadcast had caused difficulties within the family but insisted that before that they “had a strong bond”. She also said that matters had now been reconciled. Her sister, R, gave a similar account.33

61.We know from the first investigation that Ms Zaman’s sisters helped her with her complaint in January 2018, and U told us that he spoke to family members in 2018 when verifying Ms Zaman’s story.

62.The beginning of the rift can be fairly closely identified from the evidence that the family attended the wedding of Ms Zaman’s daughter in December 2018, but she did not attend that of her brother in June 2019.

Analysis

63.L’s account that he was told in or around April 2018 that Ms Zaman was estranged from her family is inconsistent with Ms Zaman’s account and those of her father and sisters, and of U.

64.Ms Zaman’s account, which is corroborated by her father and sisters, was that there was a period of estrangement following the Newsnight broadcast.

65.The accounts of family members and Ms Zaman differ on detail, which I attribute to different members of the family having different conversations with Ms Zaman; to family members feeling uncomfortable talking about this sensitive family issue, which has resonated in the wider family in England and in other countries; and to a wish to reduce the risk of harm to prospects of reconciliation. I consider the only important point, which they all agree on, is that it was the broadcast, and Ms Zaman speaking to camera without concealment, that triggered the rift.

66.There is evidence in the report of the first investigation, (shown to Lord Ahmed during that investigation) and in the evidence of W, G and U in this investigation, that two of Ms Zaman’s sisters helped her with her complaint in 2018.

67.L offered no further evidence to corroborate his account.

68.Lord Ahmed’s claim that Ms Zaman was clearly lying in her written response is not borne out by the evidence he himself produced, which shows that when she referred to the rift in her family, this was many months after the Newsnight broadcast.

Summary of evidence and analysis

69.The evidence that L was told in April 2018 that Ms Zaman was estranged from her family and that he reported it to D consists only of their accounts.

70.There is no evidence that they informed W or anyone else.

71.There is no other evidence that they made these enquiries of local sources.

72.There is good evidence, provided in 2019 as well as during this supplementary investigation, that Ms Zaman was not estranged from her family in 2018.

73.Lord Ahmed’s assertion that Ms Zaman is clearly lying is not supported by the evidence he puts forward or any other evidence.

D’s statement that Ms Zaman had volunteered to him in April 2018 she had lied in her allegations against Lord Ahmed

D’s account

74.In his written statement, D said that, having received information from his own sources and those of L that cast doubt on Ms Zaman’s story, he intended to speak to her and to “create a friendly atmosphere and come across to her as a friend who was on her side”. According to his account, Ms Zaman then contacted him herself and volunteered that “the allegation she had made which were in the article to be published, namely that she was sexually assaulted and exploited by Lord Ahmed were false”, invented as Lord Ahmed had broken off their relationship and she was “infuriated … to the extent that she wanted to get back at Lord Ahmed and destroy his career”. He also said she intended to use a #MeTooMyLord to increase the impact of her complaints.

75.He said that one reason why Ms Zaman had confided in him was because he and she came from the same area of Pakistan, and another was that he knew her father (who was friends with D’s uncle).

76.We discussed this allegation with D.34 We asked whether he had any contemporaneous notes to corroborate his account. He said he made notes on his mobile phone, but his phone had since been damaged—no copies of notes were provided to us.

77.We asked D what Ms Zaman had said to him. He said she had told him “I need to get back at Mr Ahmed because he broke my relationship … I’m willing to go to any extent to do him over, to get my revenge”.

78.We asked for further details of the nature of the lies she had said she had told. He replied:

““Nature”? She’s explained that she’s got a - she’s having a relationship with someone called [X] and then Mr -- Lord Ahmed found out about the relationship and made false -–broke a friendship with her and therefore she needs to get back to Mr -- get him back and destroy his career, Mr Ahmed’s career. … Ms Tahira Zaman in the initial stage she’s told me that she’s had -- she’s been sexually assaulted by Lord Ahmed, which later on was never discussed in that phone conversation. So all that I could assume she’s just going for the revenge.”

79.In interview, D did not mention the proposed #MeTooMyLord campaign.

80.We asked whether he had passed this information to Lord Ahmed at the time. He said he had not, as this would have involved revealing he had been working on a damaging story.

81.He also did not discuss Ms Zaman’s revelations with W, the journalist who had initially contacted him to work on the story. D explained that this was because “he was not my direct source, so I had to report everything to my seniors” and because his conversation with Ms Zaman took place after W had told him that the national newspaper he was hoping to work with (The Sun, according to D’s account) had pulled out because, as he understood it, it did not believe the allegations were true.

82.We asked whether he mentioned his conversation with Ms Zaman to Lord Ahmed after the Newsnight broadcast. He said he had not.

83.We asked if he had discussed the conversation with any of his journalist colleagues after the broadcast. He said he had not.

84.After the Newsnight broadcast, W published a story summarising the allegations made in that broadcast. We asked if D had spoken to W at that point to inform him of his conversation with Ms Zaman. He said he had not. He explained, “when it broke I wasn’t aware, so I became aware after that and then I did not feel appropriate that I could do anything in order to pursue this because I don’t have any solid proofs.”

L’s account

85.L stated that he did not speak to Ms Zaman directly at any point but he confirmed that he had proposed to D that he create a friendly atmosphere with Ms Zaman after his sources had reported she could not be trusted. D had subsequently reported to him his conversation with Ms Zaman. He said that, as the situation was a junior colleague consulting a senior one, there were no written notes of their conversations.35

86.We asked him if he and D had discussed telling Lord Ahmed about Ms Zaman’s phone call. He said they had not because “this was quite personal and this was, you know, confidential”.

87.We asked whether he and D had discussed matters after the Newsnight broadcast. He said that they had done, though not in detail:

“So this was not like a story on which we will talk, like, every day. So it wasn’t very important to us.”

88.They had been surprised that Newsnight had gathered sufficient evidence to be confident running the story and thought it must have worded the story very carefully to avoid legal action. They continued to believe that Ms Zaman had fabricated her allegations but as they had no records of Ms Zaman’s conversation or their subsequent discussions, they took no further action.

Ps account

89.P works for D.36 She told us that she was his secretary, keeping his diary, replying to his emails, organising his business appointments, and accompanying him to business meetings and events. D suggested we speak to her. He had asked her to read through the transcript of his meeting with me and she had reminded him that she had overheard his conversation with Ms Zaman.

90.P said that D had asked her to look through the transcript of our meeting “so he could make sure everything was okay”. She said she:

91.I asked P what she had heard Ms Zaman say on the phone. She said:

“so somebody called, but I didn’t know who was that woman who called [D] because I was in the car and his Bluetooth was connected to the car. So I was on the passenger side. So somebody called him and then she said, “Brother [D], you know I’ve told you to publish this story for me, so can you help me with this?”, and [D] said, you know, “There are other publishers involved. They were involved but they backed off because there are so many weak points”. And then she said, “Brother [D], can you please help me with this because of Mr Lord Nazir?” -- this is how when she mentioned his name–- because of Mr Lord Nazir her relationship is finished so she wants to take revenge and destroy his career. And what D’s reply was, “All right; okay, I’ll see what I can do. We’ll talk further on this; that’s all”. Then I ask [D], “Who is this woman, and why is she asking you to do something wrong about, you know, Mr Nazir”? Because I have met Mr Nazir a few times on a professional levels on the events. He said, “Just leave it with me and I’ll sort this out”. That’s all I know about this.”

92.Subsequently she said that D had mentioned Ms Zaman’s name in the phone call.

93.She said that during the phone call Ms Zaman was not specific about what aspects of the story were fabricated. She had simply said “she wants to take her revenge and destroy his career. And she can go to any extent and she can add up more into the story if you want her to do that. That’s all I know about it, nothing else, you know, what was going on or, you know, what he said, what kind of relationship she had with Mr Nazir or anything. I don’t know anything about.”

Ms Zaman’s account

94.Ms Zaman categorically denied any conversation with D in which she said she had fabricated or had being willing to fabricate allegations against Lord Ahmed. In the course of her denials she noted that:

95.In her comments on the factual report she pointed out that she never referred to Lord Ahmed as Mr Lord Nazir.

Analysis

The likelihood of Ms Zaman making such a disclosure

96.In April 2018 Ms Zaman was in contact with a number of journalists, at least two of whom, W and U, were pursuing the possibility of publication. In addition, the police were investigating her complaints against Lord Ahmed.

97.D was someone she had never met, who had been introduced to her by W, and who she had only spoken to on the phone. The risks of recruiting this man to help her deceive her other contacts would have been very significant, and the fact that D knew her father and their ancestral homes were close to each other would hardly justify such a risk.

Inconsistent accounts

98.The accounts of this alleged conversation given in D’s oral and written evidence are inconsistent. The written account, given in June 2020, is detailed and specific. His oral account, given in August 2020, is much less so, and differs markedly. In his written account he wrote she was very specific in setting out what was not true, and in mentioning the #MeTooMyLord campaign. In his oral account he said that she never mentioned the detail in the phone call and therefore “I could only assume she was going for revenge”.

99.P’s account is similar to D’s oral account in that it is non-specific. However, she says she knew it was about Lord Ahmed as Ms Zaman mentioned his name ‘Mr Lord Nazir’. P also said that during this conversation Ms Zaman offered to make up more lies if it would help destroy Lord Ahmed. However, D’s written and oral evidence did not include this serious allegation.

100.P did not refer to Ms Zaman mentioning the #MeTooMyLord campaign.

101.Of course, I accept that accounts given at different times, and relying on memory, can quite innocently vary somewhat. After D’s email informing me of P’s recognition of overhearing the phone call, I wanted to re-interview him and my office made several attempts to contact him to make arrangements. However, he did not respond to these requests. If I had interviewed him, I would have asked him about the various differences in these accounts. I would also have asked:

102.Clarification of what D actually said when interviewed by Imran Khan & Partners would have been helpful in establishing why D’s statement gave so much more detail about what Ms Zaman had said than either he or P recounted at interview with us. D authorised Imran Khan & Partners to release the notes of interview to us, and we contacted them to inform them of this, but the notes have not been provided to us.

Failure to act on Ms Zaman’s voluntary account of lying

103.D confirmed that he:

104.Each of these would appear to have been logical steps for someone keen to pursue a story (as he initially was), keen to help a professional friend, (as W was), or willing to provide support to Lord Ahmed (as he has been in this investigation). D offers no plausible explanation for his inaction following Ms Zaman’s alleged phone call.

105.Later in this report we discuss the evidence that D had a conversation about the Newsnight programme with Mr Zaman, before the programme was broadcast. As explained below, we consider the evidence to be strong that the meeting took place and that it had been instigated by Lord Ahmed. If this were so, we would have expected D to have told Lord Ahmed about the phone call, as it would have been useful ammunition in his response to the letter sent to him by the BBC before the broadcast.

Lack of supporting evidence

106.Neither D nor L had any note or record of the alleged phone call, nor of their discussions about it. Given that it was D’s intention to get Ms Zaman to tell him the truth, it is relevant to the plausibility of his story that he appears not to have attempted to obtain any usable record of her account of having lied.

107.In his response to the draft factual report, Lord Ahmed suggested that I was not being even handed when I pressed D for contemporaneous evidence to support his account that Ms Zaman volunteered that she had lied to him, when I make no issue about other witnesses not having their contemporaneous notes of contact with Ms Zaman. However, in the interviews with D, L and P my role was to test their evidence, which was disputed. I was therefore seeking any independent evidence that the conversation had taken place. With other witnesses, that they had spoken to Ms Zaman during the same period was not contested. My purpose in interviewing them was to ask their views on Ms Zaman’s reliability and to assess the evidence on which they based their views.

108.D, L and P could not produce any independent contemporaneous evidence, for instance a note of the conversation, a third party to whom any of them had spoken about the call, or a text between them referencing it. Not only was there nothing, but D had not even mentioned P as a witness when he discussed the alleged phone conversation with L.

P’s account of how she because aware of the current investigation

109.P’s account of how she became aware that she had information relevant to our investigation shows a strong resemblance to the account of how D came to make a statement to Lord Ahmed’s solicitors.

110.In both cases, the possessor of a significant piece of information—which had not been mentioned for over two years—became aware of its significance when asked to carry out an unrelated task: in D’s case to provide a character reference; in P’s, to read out the transcript of an interview at which she had not been present. The intervention, twice, of a deus ex machina allowed Lord Ahmed to introduce new evidence in his appeal. The fact that it allegedly happened twice, to my mind somewhat undermines the likelihood of it having happened at all.

111.As noted above, we sought a further interview with D. Had he been forthcoming in responding to those requests, we would have asked him follow-up questions as set out at paragraph 106 above, including questions about P’s involvement.

112.As we could not ask him these questions, and as P was unable to suggest why she had been asked to read out the transcript, I consider it likely that either no such reading took place, or that any such reading was intended to give an air of verisimilitude to P’s account.

Summary of evidence and analysis

113.At the time of the alleged phone call Ms Zaman was in contact with journalists interested in promoting her story, and the police were investigating her complaints against Lord Ahmed.

114.She hardly knew D and had never met him.

115.The only evidence that this call took place is in the evidence of D and P, and in the evidence of L that he was told about it (but not told that P had heard the conversation).

116.D did not to warn W about the content of Ms Zaman’s phone call.

117.D did not mention the phone call to Lord Ahmed at times when it would have been natural to do so, and gave no real explanation for his subsequent willingness to do so this year.

118.D and L did not to discuss the phone call with trusted colleagues in the PPCUK after the broadcast.

Ms Zaman’s allegation, in her written response to the new material, that D had spoken to her father before the Newsnight broadcast, asking him to discourage her from involvement in it, and that this was probably at Lord Ahmed’s request

119.In her response to Lord Ahmed’s appeal, Ms Zaman wrote:

“The journalist, [D] has omitted that as soon as BBC Newsnight wrote to Lord Ahmed for his side of the story, that he was ordered or sent by Lord Ahmed, to visit my father at his home in Rochdale. He then asked my father to sit in the car with him, and informed him that BBC are going to release documentary about what happened to me, and that he should be forcing his daughter to stop. He tried to intimidate my father by stating, his daughter is bringing shame to his family and to the local community. [D] also reminded my father that he is a public figure and it would have grave consequences on his position. My father had no idea I had contacted media before [D] unexpectedly and suddenly visited and spoke to him. My father did call me up, and reprimanded me, and appeared scared by [D] and Lord Ahmed. My father told me not to go ahead with the documentary.”

120.During the first investigation we were provided with part of the letter the BBC sent to Lord Ahmed on 6 February 2019, informing him of their investigation, referring to Ms Zaman by name, and inviting his response to her allegations.

121.Lord Ahmed responded to this allegation in a submission to the Committee:

“By stating that [D] visited her father at his home in Rochdale after BBC Newsnight contacted me she has provided confirmation of what [D] has said in his statement that he knew her father because the families came from the same village.”

122.He did not deal with Ms Zaman’s allegation that he had asked [D] to meet Mr Zaman.

123.We spoke to Mr Zaman.37 He confirmed that he knew D. He described being contacted by D before the Newsnight broadcast:

“he said that, “I would like to see you. It’s very urgent matter”, and then I went to Town Hall. He was parked outside the Town Hall and I sat in his car … And he said that there is going to be a documentary which is going to be out and it’s going to bring so many problems and all of that. He actually asked me to stop Tahira from doing that … He was saying, “The community is going to be so much, you know, everybody is going to get to know about it and it’s going to be no good for our community, no good for you because you’re Mayor and it’s going to be really something really bad for our community”. So around it he said sort of things.”

124.We asked whether he had the impression D had approached him out of concern for Ms Zaman, Lord Ahmed or both:

“Well, he wasn’t concerned about -- well, Tahira, I think it more it was like because he’s very close to Lord Nazir Ahmed.”

125.Mr Zaman said that the meeting had happened shortly before the broadcast and that he had not known about the broadcast before being told of it by D.

126.H Zaman was Lady Mayoress while her father was Lord Mayor of Rochdale.38 She recalled her father mentioning “at the time someone advising him to tell her not to go ahead with it.”

127.R Zaman also recalled her father telling her about the incident:39

“He had come over and he said that a man called [D] -- I mean, my dad knows this particular [D]; I don’t know who he is. He said that he had come over and my dad was in a bit of a shock and I’m like, “What’s happened? Just tell me”.

He goes, “I can’t, I can’t understand, I’m a bit confused”. And he goes that, “[D] said that, you know, ‘You need to stop your daughter from going ahead with this documentary being aired. If you don’t --’” Now I would take it as a threat what I’m about to repeat now. He said to my dad that, “If she goes ahead with this documentary, she will get killed”, in his exact words, and this is exactly how my dad told me.”

128.Ms Zaman told us that the conversation with D led her father to speak to her grandfather in Pakistan.40 Her grandfather then phoned her to attempt to persuade her to withdraw from the broadcast. R Zaman also recalled her grandfather becoming involved following the conversation with her father.

129.In his response to the draft factual report, Lord Ahmed suggested, without any evidence, that I decided not to contact Ms Zaman’s grandfather to protect his privacy. That was not the reason. We considered trying to speak to Ms Zaman’s grandfather, but upon being told that he lives in Azad Kashmir, that he is in his late 90s and losing his memory somewhat and that any interview would have to take place through an interpreter, I decided that, in light of the accounts of family members in England, it was not necessary to interview him, and would likely cause him anxiety disproportionate to the value of anything he might say.

130.W recalled Ms Zaman telling him that D had approached her father before the Newsnight broadcast, and told him that her father was upset by the meeting.41

131.D denied Ms Zaman’s allegation. He said he had never spoken to Mr Zaman on the topic.42

132.Lord Ahmed criticises me for not interviewing D on this again, once Mr Zaman had given his account. There was no need for me to do so: the allegation had been put to him, and he had given a clear and categorical answer.

Analysis

133.D denies that this meeting took place.

134.The accounts of Mr Zaman, and his daughters Tahira, R and H Zaman, confirm that Mr Zaman told each of them of the meeting. There are some differences in their accounts: Ms Zaman places the conversation in a car at Mr Zaman’s home; Mr Zaman, in his car outside Rochdale Town Hall; and R, in Mr Zaman’s house. As I previously explained in dealing with the variations in the accounts of D and P, I accept that accounts given at different times, and relying on memory, can quite innocently vary somewhat. As the accounts of the daughters are second hand, this is another factor that makes discrepancies more likely.

135.Ms Zaman told W about the meeting and her father’s reaction to it before this investigation began, which supports the veracity of the account by the family.

136.The family’s accounts of the fact of the meeting and its aftermath, including the detail that Ms Zaman’s grandfather was brought in to try and persuade her not to co-operate with the programme, are consistent on the central points of the meeting, its timing and the effect of it on Mr Zaman.

137.Some of the detail of the conversation varies, but as Mr Zaman was the only person present whose account we have, I consider his version is likely to be the most reliable.

138.Lord Ahmed was aware of the Newsnight broadcast ahead of transmission on 14 February 2019 as the BBC had written to him on 6 February to ask for his response to the allegations. Our research shows no publicity ahead of the broadcast, as is usual for Newsnight investigations. If D did speak to Mr Zaman ahead of the broadcast, his only likely source of knowledge about the broadcast would have been Lord Ahmed.

Summary of evidence and analysis

139.D denies that this meeting took place.

140.Mr Zaman described the meeting to us, and told us he had discussed it with his daughters. He thought that D wanted to protect Lord Ahmed, rather than his daughter Tahira, and he thought, although he had no proof, that Lord Ahmed was behind the meeting.

141.He said the meeting was shortly before the broadcast. The broadcast was on 14 February 2019 and the BBC wrote to Lord Ahmed about it on 6 February, so the timing of the meeting would fit into this period.

D’s account that W told him that The Sun was pulling out as it believed the allegations to be false

142.In his written statement, D said, “[W] told me a couple of days later that The Sun newspaper had pulled out of running the story because, as he understood it, they considered the allegations to be false”.

143.W and Ms Zaman both confirm that The Sun was never approached, so it seems likely that D mistook references to The Sunday Times as references to The Sun.

144.The more serious allegation is that W told D that the newspaper did not want to use the story because it believed Ms Zaman’s claims were false. W and G (The Sunday Times journalist W had involved) both confirmed that the reason for The Sunday Times not taking the story was because of the lack of corroborative evidence, not doubts about Ms Zaman’s veracity.43

Analysis

145.Confusing The Sun with The Sunday Times is an odd mistake for a journalist to make.

146.The evidence ofW andG as to the reason The Sunday Times did not run with the story is supported by their continued engagement with Ms Zaman.

147.There is no reason for W, who remained committed to publishing Ms Zaman’s claim of sexual exploitation, to have given a false account to D about the reason The Sunday Times did not take the story.

The statement of D that Ms Zaman told him in 2018 that she was seeking to create or use a #MeTooMyLord campaign to increase the impact of her allegations against Lord Ahmed

148.In his statement, D said that during the telephone call in which Ms Zaman volunteered having fabricated her allegations, Ms Zaman had also said “she was going to use the ‘MeToo’ movement to get Lord Ahmed because as a result of that campaign, it was now easier to make these allegations against men and she hoped to gain publicity by calling what she was doing as ‘#MeTooMyLord’.”

149.In interview, D made no mention of the campaign in his description of his phone call with Ms Zaman.

150.In his interview, W referred to the concept of a #MeTooMyLord campaign several times:44

151.W told us he had shown the draft article containing a reference to #MeTooMyLord to Ms Zaman, but she told us she never saw it. She said that when she spoke to W, he had suggested she go online and look at the campaign. She thought he was suggesting this to give her strength, to see that other women were going through the same thing. She said she did look up the campaign “once or twice, but was not interested in doing anything about it, and had never wanted to get involved in the MeToo campaign.”

152.Our own searches online for the campaign uncovered a handful of posts on Twitter by W and Asian Lite45 and an online petition on which W is one of two people to have commented.

Analysis

153.There is no evidence to link Ms Zaman to a #MeTooMyLord campaign, other than the suggestion made in W’s draft article, which was sent to D. W’s evidence gives the overwhelming impression that any campaign was his idea of a way of maximising the newsworthiness. This is corroborated by the instances of the use of #MeTooMyLord we were able to find online.

Lord Ahmed, D and L

The relationships between Lord Ahmed, D and L

154.In his written statement, D described his association with Lord Ahmed:

“I should say that the reason Lord Ahmed asked me for a character reference is not because I have known him in any personal capacity but because I am aware of the various public and charitable events he has been involved in … I have no reason whatsoever to say anything in Lord Ahmed’s favour or support him in any way.”

155.Later in his statement he added, “Whilst I was keen to run a story about a high profile public figure and a man that I had no relationship with or loyalty to, I was not prepared to assist in the promotion of a false story.”

156.During our interview he reaffirmed that he knew Lord Ahmed only as a high-profile figure with whom he had interacted as a journalist.

157.L described his relationship with Lord Ahmed in his written statement:

“Since I work in a profession where meeting individuals with a high profile is common, I was aware of who Lord Nazir Ahmed was and that he was a prominent figure in the Pakistani Kashmiri Community as well as a political figure. Other than this, as a result of his occasional appearances as a special guest at events hosted by the Pakistan Press Club UK I had the odd chance of interacting with him as he was a well-known public figure.”

158.During our interview he reaffirmed this description.

159.During our first interview, we asked Lord Ahmed about his relationship with D and why he had contacted him for a character reference. He confirmed that he knew D (and L) only in a professional sense. He had contacted Ddue to his position with the Pakistan Press Club North. He said he chose his character reference largely on the basis of geography—D was based in the north, as was Lord Ahmed.

Facebook pictures

160.During our investigation we found several photographs on Facebook of Lord Ahmed, D and L together at various functions and in various combinations.46 These included:

161.In several instances there were exchanges of comments on the photographs between Lord Ahmed and D. At various points in those comments they described each other in apparently close terms.

162.We asked D to comment on these photographs. He said that they were all of either community or business events and that there was “no personal connection in them pictures”.

Images 6 & 27: Lord Ahmed and D in a car

163.For example, the photo of Lord Ahmed and D in a car was posted to Facebook by Lord Ahmed and appears to show Lord Ahmed and D sitting in a car with their seatbelts on (see images 6 & 27 in Appendix 2). D explained that this was taken at the wedding of a mutual friend’s granddaughter to which they had both arrived early and had decided to wait in one of their cars in the carpark. D had simply taken a selfie with Lord Ahmed. He had a habit of taking selfies.

164.Lord Ahmed gave a similar account. We asked why he had posted the photo to Facebook. He said that D had probably sent it to him and he posted it. Though he doesn’t post all the photographs that people sent to him, he said this one looked like a nice photograph of him: “I’m smiling. People like to see me smiling.”

Image 7 & 20: D, Lord Ahmed and others in Parliament

165.With regard to the picture of him in Parliament with Lord Ahmed, D explained that with him in the picture were his secretary, Lord Ahmed, Afzal Khan (MP for Manchester, Gorton) and three other women who were journalists from abroad (see images 7 and 20 in Appendix 2). A passer-by had taken the photo. His visit had been arranged by a friend, though he could not recall who that friend was. The friend was not in the photograph. He explained how Lord Ahmed came to be in the picture: “all the mutual friends we met Lord Nazir and we met Mr Afzal Khan.”

166.Lord Ahmed said he could not recollect who had organised the visit to Parliament for D. He said that hundreds, if not thousands, of people who come through the House of Lords have photographs with him.

167.Afzal Khan MP explained that three of the ladies in the photograph were his guests (a parliamentarian from Turkey and two others with her). While he was showing his guests around, they had come across Lord Ahmed, D and P. It was his impression that Lord Ahmed was giving D and P a tour. His recollection was that a passer-by took the photo as he could not recall anyone else being in the group who could have taken the picture.

Images 4, 18 and 24: the funeral of Lord Ahmed’s sister and prayers after the death of D’s sister

168.Lord Ahmed explained that it was customary in Pakistani culture for people to attend funerals of family members of people they know where there was not a personal relationship but as a mark of respect. As he suggested, we spoke to an Imam on this issue. I spoke to Imam [T] who, whilst noting that Islam encompassed a range of customs and practices, broadly confirmed Lord Ahmed’s characterisation of cultural norms.47

Other evidence

169.We spoke to W about D’s connections with Lord Ahmed. He explained that one of the reasons he had contacted D was because he believed him to be a “close contact” of Lord Ahmed’s. He recalled an occasion where “[D] mentioned a similar case. Lord Nazir misbehaved with a Pakistani TV journalist in front of a team of journalists. [D] later teased Lord for the incident”. He said that D had told him that he and Lord Ahmed socialised:

“W: Eh, I think they are closely involved in lots of activities, community activities and they have got their own personal life, I understand, so ----

SAM EVANS: Sorry, just so as I am clear. You have said “they have got their own personal life”. Do you mean that they see each other outside of their professional lives or ----

W: Yeah, that’s right.

SAM EVANS: They do?

W: Yeah.

SAM EVANS: Okay. So they do see other outside of their professional contact.

W: That’s right; that’s correct.”

170.While W was in contact with Ms Zaman in 2018, she sent him pictures she had found of Lord Ahmed and D together. She had been angry that someone she considered to be a contact of Lord Ahmed’s had been involved. W continued to trust D despite these pictures and despite believing that D and Lord Ahmed had more than a professional relationship. He recognised that D might “be passing information” to Lord Ahmed but expected D not to do anything that would harm Ms Zaman. He said, “He may shared some info. He may be forced to do that, but he won’t let Tahira down if there is an issue.” He said [D] had explained he needed to keep on good terms with Lord Ahmed in order to support his business ventures: “[D] said he’s in need of support from Lord Nazir and that’s why he’s posing with Lord Nazir … It’s like a patronage.”

171.Ms Zaman’s father, Mohammed Zaman, also understood D and Lord Ahmed to be close. He said that D came to see him before the Newsnight broadcast to encourage him to persuade Ms Zaman to pull out of the broadcast, his impression was that he had come on Lord Ahmed’s behalf:

“when he came out the way to come and ask me to stop Tahira so I felt that maybe, you know, sometime if you can’t go directly, you try to ask other people to go and do the job for you. So maybe [D] actually he came to ask me to see if I can speak to Tahira and stop it.”

Analysis

172.Some of the photographs—such as those of Lord Ahmed and D attending the funerals or prayers of each other’s sisters—do not necessarily imply a relationship that is more than strictly professional.

173.However, the picture in the car where both are wearing seatbelts, for example, is clearly not of one person having joined another in a parked car, while waiting for an event to begin.

174.The accounts D and Lord Ahmed offer for being photographed together in Parliament are undermined by D’s incorrect statement that the women in the photo, apart from his secretary, P, were three foreign journalists, whereas Afzal Khan MP told us that the three women were his guests, one of them being a Turkish parliamentarian and that his impression was that Lord Ahmed was giving D and P a tour.

175.It is also odd that D says that he cannot remember who organised this visit, and that the photo that included Lord Ahmed and Mr Khan had been taken by a passer-by.

176.Mr Khan also thought that a passer-by took the photo, and if that is the case, the person who organised the visit should be in the photo. There is no reason to suppose that Mr Khan organised the visit, which only leaves Lord Ahmed. Of course, it is possible for a parliamentarian to organise a visit for a professional contact, but if that was the case, why did D not simply say so? An obvious reason would be that he was trying to avoid any suggestion that he and Lord Ahmed were close enough, whether professionally or personally, for Lord Ahmed to do him favours.

177.As noted above, Lord Ahmed’s description of the custom and practice in his culture of attending the funerals of family members of people with whom they do not necessarily have a personal relationship was broadly confirmed by Imam [T]. In his response to my draft factual report, Lord Ahmed criticises the evidence we took from Imam [T] on the basis that he is not an expert in Kashmiri or Mirpuri culture and therefore not an appropriate witness. I accept that cultural and religious practices vary within Islam, and this was a point Imam [T] also made in his evidence. However, as his evidence broadly supported Lord Ahmed’s description of matters, I did not feel that this was a line of investigation that required more specific attention. Had Imam [T]’s evidence cast doubt on Lord Ahmed’s account it would have been necessary to gather more culturally-specific expert evidence.

178.Both W and Mr Zaman believed that D and Lord Ahmed had a personal as well as professional connection.

179.Lord Ahmed’s reason for contacting D for a character reference is also notable, apparently based not on his knowledge of Lord Ahmed’s character, but only on his being based in the North. L was not approached though he was also based in the North and, according to both L and D, would be considered a more senior figure. One explanation for his choice of D would be that he and Lord Ahmed knew one another better, but this would be inconsistent with D’s written and oral evidence as well as Lord Ahmed’s. If the relationship between D and Lord Ahmed was closer than they had presented, it would be necessary to consider why they should have presented it as being purely professional. The only explanation that would make sense in the current context would be to attempt to add a false impression of neutrality to D’s evidence.

Summary of evidence and analysis

180.With regard to the social media posts, other than those relating to the funerals and prayers for Lord Ahmed’s and D’s sisters, the explanations given by Lord Ahmed and D are either implausible or inconsistent with other evidence. They appear to show a relationship closer than the neutral, professional contact described in the new material.

181.This impression is strengthened by the evidence of W who is unequivocal that D and Lord Ahmed have a close personal relationship as well as a professional one. Furthermore, Mr Zaman’s clear impression following his conversation with D before the Newsnight broadcast was that D approached him on the behalf of Lord Ahmed.

182.Given that Lord Ahmed and D must know the nature of their relationship, that it has been misrepresented to the Committee cannot be inadvertent. The only likely reason for such misrepresentation is to attempt to add a false impression of neutrality to D’s evidence.

D’s initial refusal to be interviewed

183.When we first wrote to D to arrange a video interview he replied:

“Thank you for the email due to Covid 19 I will not be able to give interview via Microsoft as I’m a full time carer to both my sons with special needs they both need my full attention and supervision as well as this trying to priorities my work too, it will be extremely difficult but i am happy to do it threw email.”

184.We explained that written evidence in this case would not meet our needs. He then agreed to a video interview.

185.In the course of investigating certain witnesses’ social media posts, including those of D, we became aware of a video posted to YouTube by the account “Travel with [L]”. The video features D and his sons in the park. They were in wheelchairs but apparently able to control their wheelchairs, feed themselves and speak to the camera recording their conversations. We also came across a posting from Sleek Asian (D’s publication) which listed them in marketing and management roles.

186.We asked for further evidence to assess whether D’s initial refusal to meet due to caring responsibilities was genuine. He gave us permission to speak to one of his sons’ healthcare team. She told us that his sons’ care needs, which she understood he shared with his wife, were intense and frequent but not constant.

Analysis

187.The information from the member of D’s sons’ healthcare team does not support D’s initial assertion that their care needs prevented him from meeting with us. From the description given, it seems likely that a video meeting of 60-90 minutes, with any breaks necessary, would have been possible. Indeed, the fact that when we persisted in asking for a meeting, D was able to attend one of the first dates and times we proposed suggests that his caring responsibilities were not a genuine barrier to a meeting.

188.Given that D’s was the key evidence being relied upon by Lord Ahmed in his appeal, his initial refusal to meet on grounds which do not appear to have been genuine is significant when considering his credibility as a witness.

189.In his response to my draft factual report, Lord Ahmed was critical of the attention I paid to this issue, saying I appear not to accept the evidence of the disabilities of D’s sons. This is not the case. My focus was on the extent of D’s caring responsibilities, a topic introduced by him when we first contacted him as the key witness introduced by Lord Ahmed’s appeal.

The circumstances leading to D and L giving statements to Imran Khan & Partners in June 2020

190.In his appeal Lord Ahmed wrote that D had been asked to provide a character reference in his support, and this led to him telling Lord Ahmed he had further information. D gave a similar account in his written statement.

191.When we interviewed Lord Ahmed on 11 August, we asked why he had not mentioned that he had a further witness with potential information when he had put in his character references and other representations in May 2020. He said he had not known what the information was. He said he asked D to contact his solicitors, and he had then had no further contact with him, made no attempt to contact him, and did not discuss the situation with his solicitors.

192.We interviewed D on 14 August and asked him about the phone call from Lord Ahmed. He said that once he had told him that he had further information, Lord Ahmed had given him his lawyer’s number and said he would give his lawyer D’s details.

193.We asked why it had taken so long for D to get in contact with Imran Khan & Partners after his phone conversation with Lord Ahmed in April. He explained that he had forgotten about it at a time of high pressure when he was having to manage his increased caring responsibilities and his work during lockdown:

“So it just went so chaos; it just went so busy. So I totally forgot about it. I think his lawyer tried contacting me, but I must have missed their call. Then I was reminded to check the email. I think that was sometime in June - mid-June … I think 16 or 18 June when I become aware that they want to speak to me.”

194.We asked him to have a look for the email he referred to, and he said he would, but we have not received anything.

195.In order to clarify precisely the sequence of events that led to the written statements being produced, I wrote to Mr Khan on 14 August. There then followed a series of emails between me and Mr Khan’s office. During that time, I also interviewed Lord Ahmed again. In his second interview he said that he had given his solicitors D’s details, rather than the other way around as per his interview. I sought to clarify this detail in my emails with Mr Khan’s office too.48

196.On this specific point—whether D was given details to contact Imran Khan & Partners or the other way around—Mr Khan’s office replied:

“The only information I can provide to you without breaching privilege is that as a consequence of contact with Lord Ahmed on the 30th April, we became aware of [D] being a potential witness. As you are aware the process of taking a statement from him commenced on the 18th June.”

197.As his office had kindly ended the previous email by saying that I should not hesitate to contact them if I had any further queries, I emailed again:

“Thank you for your prompt reply, which is helpful. However, it does raise a further point, which I hope you can answer.

You say that as a consequence of contact with Lord Ahmed on the 30th April, you became aware of [D] being a potential witness. Did Lord Ahmed tell you that [D] was a possible character witness, or did he explain that [D] had said he had information relevant to Lord Ahmed’s appeal?

Also, can you say when you first tried to make contact with [D], and why?

Finally, in relation to the other people who provided character references, did your firm play any part in obtaining these, or did they simply send them to you? If your firm did play a part, can you clarify when you made contact with these witnesses?

I realise, of course, that you are under no obligation to provide this information, but if Lord Ahmed’s accounts on this are correct, legal professional privilege does not prevent you from confirming the details, so long as Lord Ahmed agrees.’ I received a reply from [your office] the same day, saying that she regretted not being in a position to assist any further.”

198.Mr Khan’s office replied on 25 September saying, “I regret that I am not in a position to assist any further.”

Analysis

199.D did not provide the email by which he told us he was reminded to contact Lord Ahmed’s solicitors. Lord Ahmed says he had no contact with D during this process, and P told us she knew nothing about D’s offer to provide information to Lord Ahmed’s lawyers, so she could not have reminded him.

200.Imran Khan & Partners did not answer our questions as to when D contacted the firm, nor when they first tried to make contact with him.

201.The sender of the email reminding D to contact Lord Ahmed’s solicitors there remains unknown, nor have I been provided with any evidence that the email was sent.

202.I also have no independent evidence to explain the gap between Lord Ahmed’s alleged conversation with D in April and the contact between D and the firm in the second half of June. I note here that D said that there was chaos because of the lockdown, and I am sure he is right that lockdown would have brought multiple problems for his family to deal with. However, lockdown began on 23 March, and although things may have still been very difficult a month later, presumably some sort of new normal would have emerged for this family as for all others. By his own account, D understood the importance of his information, which is why he was willing to break his silence at this point. It seems odd that, despite this, he then forgot about it.

203.Legal professional privilege is a principle that in certain circumstances, which I consider to include my investigation, protects all communications between a qualified lawyer and his or her client from being disclosed without the client’s consent. Its rationale is to support the administration of justice.

204.The principle does not prevent the lawyer disclosing information covered by privilege if the client consents.

205.In this case, I have tried to get confirmation of Lord Ahmed’s claim that he spoke to D in April 2020 at the same time as he was asking others to be a character witness for him; that D said he had relevant information about the matter, that Lord Ahmed gave D his solicitors contact details and also gave D’s contact details to his solicitors, and that he took no further part in the evidence gathering process.

206.However, as set out above, I have not been able to obtain this confirmation from Imran Khan & Partners, and have been told that this is because of privilege. The obvious inference is that the firm cannot confirm Lord Ahmed’s account, either because he has not allowed them to do so, or because providing the information I have requested would damage Lord Ahmed’s interests.

207.Imran Khan & Partners is acting in accordance with its professional duties in the refusal to answer some of my questions, and I do not criticise it.

208.Nor do I speculate on the information that the firm feels unable to disclose.

209.However, I do invite the Conduct Committee to take into account, in any decision that it makes, the fact that I have been unable to clarify what ought to have been a simple question of the sequence of events leading up to the written statements being taken by Imran Khan & Partners. The information that would have clarified at least some of the uncertainty has been withheld from me.

Summary of evidence and analysis

210.D did not provide the email reminding him of the need to contact Lord Ahmed’s solicitors.

211.I have not been able to confirm Lord Ahmed’s account that he spoke to D in April 2020 at the same time as he was asking others to be a character witness for him; that D said he had relevant information about the matter; that Lord Ahmed gave D his solicitors contact details; and also gave D’s contact details to his solicitors, and that he took no further part in the evidence gathering process. I have also not been able to establish who sent the email to D in June that he said triggered him contacting Imran Khan & Partners.

28 See paragraphs 142–166 of the factual report in Appendix 2

29 See paragraph 211 of the factual report in Appendix 2

30 G contacted my office and the House of Lords press office a number of times following my dismissal of Ms Zaman’s first complaint.

31 See paragraph 62 of the factual report in Appendix 2

32 See paragraph 232 of the factual report in Appendix 2

33 See paragraphs 248–249 of the factual report in Appendix 2

34 See paragraphs 114–115 of the factual report in Appendix 2

35 See paragraph 156 of the factual report in Appendix 2

36 See paragraphs 330–348 of the factual report in Appendix 2

37 See paragraphs 219–237 of the factual report in Appendix 2

38 See paragraph 93 of the factual report in Appendix 2

39 See paragraphs 244 and 245 of the factual report in Appendix 2

40 See paragraphs 52 and 53 of the factual report in Appendix 2

41 See paragraph 203 of the factual report in Appendix 2

42 See paragraph 120 of the factual report in Appendix 2

43 See paragraphs 180 and 181, and 301 of the factual report in Appendix 2

44 See paragraphs 171, 177 and 187 of the factual report in Appendix 2

45 Some of these posts link to articles published by Asian Lite: one following the Newsnight broadcast and one following my first report in the conduct of Lord Stone of Blackheath.

46 See images in Appendix 2

47 See paragraphs 310–323 of the factual report in Appendix 2

48 See paragraphs 85–90 of the factual report in Appendix 2



© Parliamentary copyright 2020