Greenwich leader loses majority as council announces fraud charges against ally – after denying any investigation

rb greenwich

Six weeks ago, the SKWAWKBOX published claims from Labour insiders in the London borough of Greenwich that a key ally of the council leader – whose majority in the group was a single vote – was mired in a property scandal that was being kept quiet.

The background

This blog had been investigating the issues for over three weeks before that, following multiple reports from the borough that a Labour councillor had been interviewed about her property affairs and declarations.

When the SKWAWKBOX first contacted the council, the borough’s press office flatly denied:

  • that the councillor had been interviewed by the council
  • that the councillor had been interviewed by Labour whips
  • that the councillor had been interviewed by anyone
  • that there was any investigation relating to alleged property fraud or failure to declare interests

By early June when this blog contacted the council again after tips of further developments, the story had changed. Instead of a flat denial, the council’s communications officer refused to confirm or deny that any investigation was underway, although it was confirmed that the councillor – whose name the SKWAWKBOX did not publish at that time – was a supporter of the council leader.

The council’s leader, Daniel Thorpe, refused to comment at any point when contacted.

The whisper

Sometime yesterday, a notice was published on the council’s website without fanfare or announcement – locals describe it as ‘buried’ – a ‘Public statement regarding Councillor Tonia Ashikodi’, the councillor that the SKWAWKBOX had been discussing with the council  since mid-May:

Public statement regarding Councillor Tonia Ashikodi

Following the conclusion of a detailed criminal investigation carried out by the Council’s Internal Audit & Anti Fraud Team regarding Tonia Ashikodi’s council tenancy and the ownership of a number of properties, the Council has decided that there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest to charge Tonia Ashikodi with the following criminal offences:

  • Two offences of fraud by false representation, contrary to sections 1 and 2 of the Fraud Act 2006.
  • Jointly with another, an offence of perverting the course of justice, contrary to common law.

Informations relating to these offences have been laid at Bromley Magistrates’ Court today and these will be served upon Ms Ashikodi in due course. Ms Ashikodi will be summoned to appear before the Magistrates’ Court on 6th August 2018 and the prosecution will be in the hands of the Court.

Given Ms Ashikodi’s position as a Royal Borough of Greenwich Elected Councillor, there has been media speculation and public/press enquiries received by the Council. This statement is being made now in the interests of transparency/clarity and in order to avoid further speculation which is harmful to both the Royal Borough and the reputation of local government generally.

Clearly, it is of paramount importance that Ms Ashikodi’s fundamental legal rights to both respond to these charges and receive a fair hearing are respected. Therefore, the Council will not be making any further comment on the matter which will continue to be dealt with by the Chief Executive and Head of Legal Services.”

Debbie Warren
Chief Executive

John Scarborough
Head of Legal Services

Ms Ashikodi, who has not responded to any requests by this blog for comment, is entitled to due process and a fair hearing, so this blog makes no comment on the charges against her except to note the existence of “a detailed criminal investigation” by the council’s own investigators and the fact that perverting the course of justice carries a penalty of up to five years in prison, with fraud by false representation carrying up to ten years (or twelve months, depending on type of conviction).

 But the council’s comment that “This statement is being made now in the interests of transparency/clarity and in order to avoid further speculation which is harmful to both the Royal Borough and the reputation of local government” is astonishing.

Contacted today by the SKWAWKBOX, the a council spokesperson agreed that this blog had asked questions about interviews and investigations, including any kind of interview or investigation – which the blog knew were already underway because of inside information – but flatly denied misleading in response.

Yet now the council has announced that – after a ‘detailed criminal investigation’ by its internal team – charges have been laid.

The council also denied that there had been any cover-up.

Locals say that Ms Ashikodi is being supported by Cllr Linda Perks, one of the Labour group whips who was herself at the centre of controversy a few years ago after being heavily criticised by a judge for her part in the scandal surrounding the re-election of Unison general secretary Dave Prentis.

As Ms Ashikodi has been administratively suspended from her position, the council leader has now lost his majority. Further turmoil – and possibly investigations – are expected by local party members.

Comment:

The claim that yesterday’s statement was made in the interests of transparency stretches credulity given the circumstances. But the council had one thing right – the damage being done to its reputation and that of local government generally by its handling of this matter.

The SKWAWKBOX needs your support. This blog is provided free of charge but depends on the generosity of its readers to be viable. If you can afford to, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal. Thanks for your solidarity so this blog can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.

If you wish to reblog this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.

5 responses to “Greenwich leader loses majority as council announces fraud charges against ally – after denying any investigation

  1. For clarity, Swawkbox is referring to Cllr Thorpe’s majority within the Labour group; there are no consequences for Labour’s 42:9 majority (before Cllr Ashikodi’s suspension) on the council.

    The Labour group vote that resulted in Cllr Thorpe becoming leader was 21:20 (one member who was unable to attend because of a road traffic accident would have supported Cllr Thorpe’s opponent).

    Given the suspension of Cllr Ashikodi, and assuming no change of view by remaining members of the group, Cllr Thorpe’s support is now 20:21.

  2. I have no incredulity left. The barbarians are everywhere. Stay safe comrades.

  3. A former Head of Press for Greenwich writes:
    ” Instructions about how to fob off the press would normally be given by the Leader endorsed by the Chief Executive, but an experienced PR would not deliberately mislead . It looks like they were not given the truth. Reputationally very damaging for the PRO involved and they should take action. There is no need to lie or mislead anyone when handling Borough PR, and I have handled high profile and difficult stories for two London Boroughs. It is always best to come clean if one is in the know. But that may not have been the case with the PRO. In my day, the Chief Executive was one David Brooks, who I personally felt behaved appallingly to me. The leader was Len Duvall whose profile I helped build and he was a smart operator. . It was an awful job however. I was handling hugely high profile and difficult PR cases including some concerning the Stephen Lawrence murder, a machete murder at a local secondary and psychotic threats from a jailed paedophile against a local primary school. I was paid a pittance and there were only two experienced PROs incuding me and one assistant. (Most London Boroughs have at least four including the Director of Comms. ) The Greenwich councillors and Chief Executive were a most unappreciative bunch. In the end I had enough and just walked out without notice . They sent me a letter saying I owed them £10 which I promptly sent to them.”

  4. Should read: “Including…” Can you put an edit button on this site or allow a review of comment before posting Skwawkbox?

    • Comments should be editable by the person who posted them – is that what you mean?

Leave a Reply