Why was Mohamed Al-Fayed denied British citizenship twice? Lawyer demands answers | UK | News

For decades, ex-Harrods owner Mohamed Al-Fayed was considered a pillar of the British business establishment. But the reputation of the late billionaire, who died last year aged 94, now lies in tatters amid multiple allegations of sexual abuse and rape against him, with more than 400 victims coming forward at the last count.

Now, as the Metropolitan Police refers two cases to the police watchdog over the force’s historic handling of two abuse cases, the lawyer who defended Vanity Fair magazine in legal action brought by Al-Fayed in the 1990s is calling for the Government to release documents on why the former Egyptian tycoon was refused British citizenship twice in 1995 and 1999.

David Hooper also wants a public inquiry into what he calls the “concealed evidence” that was “never made public” surrounding the ambiguity of Al-Fayed’s request and has called into question what Harrods knew exactly about its former owner.

Speaking in an exclusive interview on the Scandal Mongers Podcast with ex-BBC journalist Phil Craig, Mr Hooper made reference to how Al-Fayed ran Harrods as a “criminal” organisation. He said: “It paid virtually no tax, there was a mass of offshore companies running, no one quite knew where the money was being paid too and where it went.

Mr Hooper said: “I would very much like to see the Government release as to why it was that Fayed was never granted citizenship. There has got to be some very interesting confidential intelligence reports that must see the light of day. Then we will know the truth.”

There is no evidence or suggestion of wrong-doing perpetrated by the current owners and managers of Harrods who have said they were “utterly appalled” by the allegations.

Al-Fayed bought the Ritz in 1979 with his brother and the pair snapped up Harrods six years later. A Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) report into the takeover, officially published in 1990, found he and his brother had been dishonest about their wealth and origins to secure the takeover.

Subsequently Al-Fayed applied to have a British passport in 1995 but it was rejected by former Conservative Home Office minister Charles Wardle reportedly due to the DTI report.

Al-Fayed, who also at one time owned Fulham FC and The Ritz in Paris, was once again rejected in his second bid to obtain a UK passport in 1999 after failing to pass the “good character” test. Part of the reason for his application’s rejection was because of “cash for questions” payments he made to several MPs, including Jonathan Aitken.

Former Labour home secretary Jack Straw decided Al-Fayed had a “general defect in his character” and refused him citizenship.

But Mr Hooper claims more answers lie in unseen documents which may hold the key to the darkest secrets Al-Fayed hid throughout his life.

Mr Hooper claims he had a private army of lawyers, serving police officers and security descend on him after he sought to defend a libel case brought against Vanity Fair by Al-Fayed in the mid-90s over evidence that alleged he was a serial abuser and a racist.

During his two year battle with Al-Fayed over the 1995 magazine article “Holy War at Harrods” by Maureen Orth, the libel solicitor quickly learned that the ruthless businessman was a master at “suppressing the dark”.

Mr Hooper claims Al-Fayed’s team of publicists, lawyers, security guards and HR bosses cleaned up after him meaning that Al-Fayed was allowed to terrorise well into this century.

He claims: “This wasn’t just something Al-Fayed was doing by himself; there were so many people who knew about it or either turned a blind eye about it. It was happening right in the centre of London.”

Ms Orth’s article initially started as a profile on Harrods with Vanity Fair belonging to the “same world” to the luxury department store until the journalist allegedly uncovered some of Al-Fayed’s darkest secrets.

The profile alleged he was a serial abuser and a racist, and that he spied on his staff, bugging their phones and wired up their flats. A two-year legal battle between Al-Fayed and Conde Nast, the publishers of Vanity Fair, ensued.

By 1997, Mr Hooper and Henry Porter, the London editor of Vanity Fair, had made a list of 45 individuals who claimed they had their telephones bugged by former police officers working for Al-Fayed, who allegedly used CCTV at Harrods to find victims for his sexual assaults and to spy on employees.

Mr Hooper said: “We had been collecting evidence for two years, it was hard to persuade people to give evidence.

“Key to it is one of the deputy heads of security Bob Loftus who courageously came forward and described the alleged corrupted relationships. Claiming Al-Fayed used to wire up flats, bugged telephones if you lived in flats belonging to Harrods, if people had private conversations particularly sex then Fayed enjoyed listening to it.

“The evidence was there, the racism was shocking, especially what he said about black people and Asian origin”, claims Mr Hooper.

Scotland Yard detectives have been accused of ignoring complaints from 21 women after it referred only two claims against Al-Fayed whilst he was alive to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), as revealed in a recent BBC Panorama documentary.

Since it aired, 421 women have come forward to lawyers with allegations of sexual misconduct, with some cases going as far back as 1977.

Mr Hooper said that in a bid to ensure his name was not tainted, Al-Fayed and his private army would often resort to “dirty tricks”, and even attempted to sting him and Mr Porter. “A six foot six security man from Harrods turned up to my officers and offered to strip to show he wasn’t wired,” he said.

Recalling this moment, the veteran lawyer said he “chose his words with care”. The security guard claimed he had been dismissed for impregnating an employee and declared he had a “compromising tape” of Al-Fayed. He “asked if we would buy it and I said I would have to discuss it with QC”, said Hooper.

But according to Mr Hooper, Al-Fayed didn’t stop there with his underhand tricks and reported both Hooper and Porter to “the city of London Police to intimidate us and try to get us arrested, which fortunately they didn’t”.This was standard for Al-Fayed who used intimidation and threats to control others.

Comparing him to the “Savilles and Einsteins” of abuse, Mr Hooper and Mr Porter claim they also had to contend with threats from Fayed’s alleged team of corrupt policemen.

He had “high level contacts with police” who were sent “enormous hampers and probably wads of cash” and as a result “cases and investigations against Harrods were dropped”, claims Mr Hooper.

“If you have corrupted people you have power over them. If Fayed had come to court everything would come out about his relationship with the police. Cases could be dropped by telephone calls being made. “You can retire at a young age from the police with a generous pension and with the pension you could get a job at Harrods and no one wanted to rock the boat. Harrods was an additional pension fund,” claims Mr Hooper.

In the era before the MeToo movement, intimidation was highly effective meaning “everyone felt very alone and isolated”.

By the summer of 1997, Al-Fayed began to make moves to settle the case against Vanity Fair. It was eventually settled out of court following the death of Princess Diana and Dodi, Al-Fayed’s son on August 31, 1997.

Barrister Dean Armstrong KC, who represents the Justice for Harrods Survivors, announced the “beginning of the formal legal process” last week.

He said: [For] anyone who thinks that it’s one [letter] – it’ll be followed today by another. It’ll be followed the day after by others. And it’ll be followed by hundreds more. If our survivors are pushed into having to defend themselves in order to achieve justice, we are ready, we are resourced, and we are determined.” Bruce Drummond, from the same team, said: “The Government should investigate how a system of abuse was allowed to continue for 25 years.”