Boris Johnson facing corruption legal battle British Prime Minister Boris Johnson faces a legal battle against corruption over whether his party has funneled taxpayer money into conservative areas to give him a political edge, The Independent reported.
The High Court will decide whether its £ 4.8 billion “leveling fund” has illegally and systematically sent money to areas deemed “of political benefit to the Conservative party,” the British newspaper said Tuesday.
Boris Johnson facing corruption legal battle The judges agreed to hear a legal appeal brought by the Good Law Project, stating: “The reasons are questionable.
The lawsuit, officially filed against Rishi Sunak, Robert Jenrick and Grant Shapps in their governing roles, could conclude that the core of the government’s so-called “leveling” program is illegal.
The leafy constituencies of the market towns of Sunak and Jenrick are among the areas benefiting from an unusual funding formula that critics have accused of being akin to a “pig barrel policy.”
Activists cited a National Audit Office investigation, which found that the government target list for the money was released without supporting information as to why they were chosen.
The House of Commons Public Accounts Committee also said the lack of transparency has given way to concerns of “political bias” in the allocation of funds.
Forty of the top 45 programs approved under the fund in March had at least one Conservative MP, bdnews24.com reports.
Jolyon Maugham, the attorney who founded the campaign group that filed the lawsuit, said at the time: “If you think it’s a coincidence that the conservative fringe is a huge beneficiary, I have a good bridge to sell you. To ensure that conservatives do not use public money for party purposes, the Good Law Project is suing. ”
“Based on the data compiled by the ministry and released by the NAO, there is strong evidence that ministers have chosen cities for the benefit of conservatives in the marginal seats in Westminster,” said activist Chris Hanretty, a professor. Policy Officer at Royal Holloway, University of London, who reviewed the funding formula and evidence presented by the National Accounts Office and the government at the time of writing.
“This evidence is robust in the sense that the effects persist even when controlling for other characteristics of the city that might rightly influence selection.
“The choice of cities for the benefit of a particular party goes against the Seven Principles of Public Life (the ‘Nolan Principles’), and in particular the obligation to’ make decisions impartially, fairly and meritoriously, using the best evidence and without discrimination or prejudice “.”
The Good Law Project has already taken the government to court for alleged cronyism in contact with IPR, clean air and access to distance education during the pandemic.
A spokesperson for the Department of Housing, Communities and Local Government said in response to the complaint at the time: community.
“The published methodology clearly indicates the metrics used to identify the places deemed most needy. It would not be appropriate to comment on a possible legal action. ”