London, by Thanasis Gavou

The former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Boris Johnson deliberately misled multiple times the House of Commons with his assurances of compliance with all lockdown rules during Downing Street meetings amid a pandemic, reports the long-awaited finding of the House of Commons Immunity Committee.

The 108-page finding of the investigation, which began 14 months ago, also blames Mr Johnson “repeated contempt and seeking to undermine the parliamentary process”.

As noted in the conclusion, “there is no precedent for a prime minister to have been judged to have deliberately misled the Parliament”. It is added how the former Prime Minister also misled the Commission itself during his testimony before its members. In addition, he is considered “complicit in the campaign of insulting and attempting to intimidate the Commission”.

The penalty recommended by the Commission, if Boris Johnson had not resigned the previous Friday from the parliamentary office, it is a 90-day expulsion from the parliament. It is also recommended that Mr Johnson not be given the parliamentary pass to which ex-MPs are entitled.

The penalty recommended by the Immunity Committee is described as “unprecedented” and the conclusion in general much more “aggravating” than expected.

A penalty of more than ten days’ expulsion from parliament allows for the initiation of a procedure to remove the member in question and hold a by-election in the constituency.

Mr. Johnson resigned last Friday having been informed of the finding of the Immunity Committee, which he rejected as outrageously biased and unfounded.

In a new statement on Thursday morning, the former prime minister called the finding “a travesty” and added that the Immunity Committee did not even deserve his scorn for reaching a “crazy conclusion”.

The Commission explains that it reached its conclusions due to, among other things, Mr Johnson’s “repeated denials of the facts”, his apparently deliberate choice to ignore these facts regarding the Downing Street parties, the fact that he “sought to rewrite the meaning of the rules’, as well as the retrospective interpretation he himself gave to events and advice he received.

The Immunity Committee’s finding it will be discussed in the plenary session of the House of Commons probably on Monday, so that it can be adopted or not by the MPs.