An ex-Lord Mayor of Birmingham embroiled in allegations of ‘gifting’ packs of dates to voters and then lying to an election court about it could be stripped of his honorary privileges. Mohammed Afzal, 78, who also chairs Birmingham Central Mosque, claims his age and race are motivating a ‘discriminatory’ attempt to bar him from his duties as an honorary alderman of the city.
The case revolves around claims that Mr Afzal, then councillor for Aston, and supporters were going door to door on the campaign trail and gifting packets of dates to electors, stamped with a Labour Party sticker, just ahead of the May 2022 local elections.
This is against electoral law and amounts to ‘treating’ or ‘gifting’, a type of bribery. Mr Afzal was so incensed when his opponents, Liberal Democrats Ayoub Khan and Mumtaz Hussain, made public the allegation that he later petitioned the High Court, sitting as an election court, to strike out the result after Mr Khan and Mrs Hussain were elected.
In written statements to the High Court, he claimed there was no truth to the ‘dates’ allegation and that it was made up out of malice. Others backed his claims.
But just before the election case was due to be heard, Mr Khan produced doorbell camera footage that had captured Mr Afzal and supporters in the act of gifting dates. They also produced evidence the action had been ‘widespread’. The case was nullified as a result.
BirminghamLive reports in his subsequent ruling agreeing to halt the case, high court judge His Honour Judge Richard Foster was scathing about Mr Afzal’s conduct. He stated that Mr Afzal “had the audacity to issue these proceedings in the knowledge that the allegations quite properly made by the respondents (Cllrs Khan and Hussain) in the course of the election campaign were truthful.
“He persisted with the Petition and served evidence from himself and others which was and he must have known to be false.”
He also ruled that “there is conclusive evidence that indeed he (Mr Afzal) and his supporters did supply electors with packets of dates containing Labour Party stickers on a widespread basis during the election campaign.”
BirminghamLive said they had contacted Mr Afzal and his solicitors to offer a right of reply, so far without response. The former councillor has not been charged with any crime linked to the incidents, which were dubbed ‘Dategate’ in reference to the packs of dried fruits at the heart of the case.
The title of honorary alderman is imposed on men and women who have served at least 15 years as a councillor, or at least 12 years and given particularly notable service, at Birmingham City Council.
Their role entitles them to ‘parking privileges’ offered to sitting councillors, the right to hold and issue business cards and letterheards with the title, and to sit in the honorary aldermen’s box at council meetings.
They are regularly invited to civic events and council functions and can be invited to serve as a deputy to the Lord Mayor, or stand in for them in their absence.
BirminghamLive reports representations from Mr Afzal’s solicitors, released publicly for the first time, condemn the council. Their email also includes a claim that other honorary aldermen in the city have retained their titles “despite having criminal convictions” against them and adds: “This is a case where our client is being discriminated against and victimised.”
They argue stripping him of the title is both ‘illegal’ and ‘ultra vires’ (meaning ‘done without legal authority’). His representation states the title conferred on him cannot be removed because of ‘future conduct’.
They claim he is being discriminated against by virtue of his ‘age and race’ and any such ruling would have ‘grave consequences’ for him. The action is ‘irrational, illegal, unreasonable and disproportionate’ and would infringe his human rights it goes on to claim.
In his emailed letter of response, also published for the first time, the council’s Mr Connelly states “the reality of the situation is simply that the council has not previously received any petitions that such titles be withdrawn.”
Mr Connelly also adds that legal precedent exists to support a right to withdraw an honorific title, even if the council’s constitution does not explicitly say so. Otherwise, he adds, someone would commit ‘the most heinous crime’ and retain an honorific title ‘which cannot be right.’
In a series of recommendations for an extraordinary meeting of the city council set to place on Tuesday January 9, the council’s 101 members are asked to vote on whether the council should review its policies around appointing and removing honorary aldermen; that future Lord Mayors should be recommended not to ask Mr Afzal to undertake any official duties; and that they should also be recommended not to invite him to attend any official events in that capacity.
Eighteen councillors, including Liberal Democrats, Greens and Conservatives, have signed a petition calling for Mr Afzal’s title to be rescinded. No Labour councillors have backed the petition.
