Sturgeon’s key staff had been due to give evidence
‘This poses yet more questions’
THE First Minister faced questions last night about what her key allies knew about the botched investigation into Alex Salmond.
The Scottish Government tried to cancel plans for two of her top advisers to give evidence under oath as part of the Court of Session judicial review.
Liz Lloyd, Miss Sturgeon’s chief of staff, and John Somers, her principal private secretary, had been due to be cross-examined under oath by Mr Salmond’s legal team on Monday. But the Scottish Government’s legal representatives questioned whether the session was necessary during a discussion with Mr Salmond’s team last Thursday.
They were informed they must attend as planned – only for the Scottish Government to privately confirm hours later that they were no longer challenging Mr Salmond’s judicial review.
Conservative MSP Annie Wells said: ‘This poses yet more questions about who knew what and when within this SNP Government.
‘It’s no wonder insiders are suspicious about this chain of events.
‘For a First Minister who prides herself on transparency, Nicola Sturgeon is looking increasingly evasive on this matter.’
Mr Salmond’s legal team at Levy & MacRae Solicitors were able to cross-examine some senior civil servants as part of the evidencegathering process during the judicial review. The Scottish Government had given an agreement that anybody requested to give evidence would do so. During one session, on December 21, Permanent Secretary Leslie Evans was questioned by Levy & MacRae.
But sources close to Mr Salmond said the Government had initially agreed to allow Miss Sturgeon’s most senior staff to face the same grilling, then showed reluctance just days before the planned session.
One source said: ‘We brought senior civil servants to court to be cross-examined by us under oath.
‘Leslie Evans has done it and yesterday two other senior people were due to give evidence – the principal private secretary and the chief of staff.
‘Last Thursday, the Scottish Government said, “Is this necessary?”. We said, “Yes”, and almost immediately they folded and collapsed the case.’ A Scottish Government spokesman said: ‘This is ridiculous and utterly unfounded.
‘The Scottish Government’s decision to no longer contest Mr Salmond’s judicial review is entirely separate and entirely unconnected to who may have been asked to appear before the commission.’
The evidence sessions under oath took place as part of a process to establish factual information about the case before the main hearing, which was due to begin next week. Two complaints in relation to Mr Salmond were made in January of last year.
During yesterday’s Court of Session case, the court was told the investigating officer appointed by the Scottish Government to head the probe had previously held discussions with the two women about the case before they made formal complaints.
Ronnie Clancy QC, representing Mr Salmond, said there was ‘a significant amount of direct personal contact between the investigating officer and complainers’.
He said: ‘That contact concerned the substance of their complaints, the evidence which was said to support these complaints, [and] the circumstances in which the complaints arose.’
Mr Clancy said they were given ‘a significant degree of assistance’ by the investigating officer ‘bordering on encouragement to them to proceed to formal complaints’.
He said the investigating officer met one complainer in early December 2017, around a fortnight after she had given a detailed account of her complaint to other officials.
Mr Clancy said the investigating officer was then designated as the ‘point of contact’ for the complainers and was in contact with both in the period up to the formal complaint being made in January 2018.
Yesterday, Miss Sturgeon said the previous contact made with the complainants by the investigating officer was ‘welfare support and guidance’ and said it was ‘entirely legitimate and appropriate’.