If you meant it then, First Minister, you will have to prove it now
Last-ditch documents plea to Nicola Sturgeon
MSPS investigating the government’s unlawful handling of harassment claims against Alex Salmond yesterday made a last- ditch appeal for the release of crucial documents.
They called on Nicola Sturgeon to keep her promise to “fully co- operate” with the Holyrood committee launched to establish what went wrong before she gives evidence on Wednesday.
Yesterday, committee member Andy Wightman said the legal advice obtained by the Scottish Government was essential but remains withheld. He said: “The committee has taken the view that this information is central to its inquiry. The government knows what the information is and has it to hand.”
MSPS investigating the Scottish Government’ s unlawful inquiry into harassment claims against Alex Salmond yesterday made a last- ditch appeal for the release of vital documents.
They called on Nicola Sturgeon to keep her promise to “fully cooperate” with the Holyrood committee of inquiry launched to establish what went wrong before she gives evidence onwednesday.
In January 2019, the first minister told MSPS: “I will answer any questions to the fullest extent possible, and my government will cooperate fully with all and any inquiries.”
However, the committee’s work has been hobbled by the protracted and repeated refusal of the government to hand over requested documents and the need to recall a number of witnesses, including senior civil servants, to“clarify” discrepancies in their evidence after new facts emerged.
Yesterday, independent MSP and committee member Andy Wightman said: “The overriding question is why the Scottish Government has not been more forthcoming and timely in its release of information, in particular why it has consistently refused to disclose legal advice.
“A substantial part of this inquiry is into a failed litigation and to fully determine that we need that legal advice. We have been asking for the legal advice for months. It should have been disclosed to the committee long ago. It could still be disclosed to the committee.
“If the Scottish Government was willing to publish this information, it would be able to do so before Wednesday. It knows what the information is and it has it all to hand.
“The committee has taken the view that this information is central to its inquiry and should be published. We would see disclosure of this material as central to her promise to co-operate fully with the inquiry.”
Sturgeon, who attacked Salmond’s claims and character before he gave evidence, is said to be eager to rebut the claims of her predecessor as first minister after he launched an onslaught against her government. During an explosive six- hours of sworn testimony on Friday, Salmond claimed there was a concerted plan to ensure and encourage his criminal prosecution to conceal the government’s abject failure to investigate two complaints against him fairly.
He accused the Scottish Government of concealing documents during his legal case against them while MSPS on the committee described their own frustration at the refusal of the government to hand over documents requested, in particular the independent legal advice concerning Salmond’s judicial review. Civil servants have been accused of rejecting the advice for at least two months before conceding the case at the first hearing, costing taxpayers at least £ 630,000 in legal costs as a judge branded it “unlawful, unfair and tainted by apparent bias”.
Wightman, who, it is said, has often had the deciding vote on the committee as it split on
– MSP and committee member Andy Wightman
party lines, said: “The focus of this inquiry is on the actions of the first minister and her government.
“Therefore, everything that the committee has been looking at – the procedure, how complaints were handled, how the judicial review was handled and any potential breaches of the ministerial code along the way – are all matters that ultimately the first minister is accountable for because they are all things that were done in her name by her government.
“So, in a sense, she has many, many questions to answer. The key ones are the development of a procedure that was then found to be unlawful and the application of that procedure in this particular case. The third one is how they approached the judicial review.”
Sturgeon has previously insisted she has “nothing to fear” from releasing legal advice, but the Salmond inquiry has still not seen it just weeks before they are due to publish their findings. Last week, she accused Salmond of peddling baseless conspiracy theories.
He gave six hours of evidence on Friday, in which he claimed Sturgeon had breached the ministerial code, an offence usually demanding resignation, while accusing senior members of the government and the SNP of a concerted effort to instigate and bolster a criminal investigation into his conduct after the government’s own inquiry into the complaints of two women collapsed. He claims there was a deliberate attempt to drag out the government’ s defence against his case, despite legal advice that it was doomed, in the hope he would be charged before it got to court and so conceal its failures. In the event, he was not charged for two weeks after his victory in court.
More than a year later, he was cleared of 13 sexual assault charges at the High Court and believes there was a concerted attempt by people in government and the SNP to encourage his prosecution.
He told MSPS on Friday that he had been given a memory stick in the build up to his criminal trial that contained messages which involved “pressurising police”, “collusion of witnesses” and “construction of evidence because police were felt to be inadequate in finding it themselves”.
At the close of his evidence, Salmond said MSPS could use the Scottish Parliament’s powers to request key documents from his solicitors Levy & Mcrae.
The committee is expected to contact them.
Conservative MSP and committee member Murdo Fraser said: “Both Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond have come up with directly contradictory explanation of the events.
I think we would want to hear from Nicola Sturgeon what her evidence is that supports her version. The second issue is in relation to the handling of the judicial review by the Scottish Government and whether that was continued beyond the point where it was clear that there was no longer a case that could be properly defended.”
Alistair Bonnington, former honorary professor at Glasgow University School of Law, said: “If the Crown Office intervened again to attempt to prevent this information being made public they will look extremely biased in favour of Nicola Sturgeon. “It would be very hard to say the Crown Office are just acting as independent upholders of the justice system.”
Lord Advocate James Wolffe will give evidence to the committee on Tuesday. On Friday Salmond accused the Scottish Government of withholding documents despite the issue of a search warrant.
Fraser said :“Failure to comply with a search warrant is a criminal offence.
“I think we will want to ask the Lord Advocate what his own view is on these matters is and whether he has any explanation for the conduct of the Scottish Government, if indeed he accepts Salmond’s evidence in this respect is correct.”
A spokesperson for the first minister said: “Friday was Alex Salmond’s chance to provide proof of the conspiracy which has been alleged – and he did not do so.
“Instead, under oath, he explicitly conceded there was no such evidence against the first minister, and also gave testimony which directly undermined some of the central planks of the conspiracy theories.
“The first minister now looks forward to addressing all of the issues Salmond raised – and much more besides – when she finally gets the opportunity to address the committee this week.”