My first day in court with Mayor Lutfur Rahman

By Muhammad Abdullah, 20th February 2015

Tower Hamlets Mayor Lutfur Rahman was defending himself in court today against allegations that were made against him by four accusers. They were all politically involved in last year’s local borough elections.

The Mayor was ready for a showdown with the “passionate petitioners” (or “sore losers”, as the Mayor dubbed them) and their legal team (their numbers swollen by members of the public gallery, who were seen passing notes to the petitioners’ barrister – shenanigans which made them look like naughty schoolboys passing notes around the classroom).

Mayor Rahman presented evidence against the accusations made against him and referred to boxes of files that were brought in by his legal team. The questioning of Mayor Rahman will continue again on Monday and will almost certainly be reported in the mainstream media – with considerable coverage being given to how the Mayor responds.

This all begs the question of how much the mainstream media has covered the credibility of the accusers themselves. There has been considerable coverage of only snippets of Mayor Rahman’s responses to questions from the petitioners’ barrister, but very little of how the accusers have responded themselves. A simple internet search of the Mayor’s name will bring up a plethora of headlines, all seeming to paint a picture in which the Mayor has already been found guilty. Why are there so few alternative reports, trying to be objective about the hearing?

It can be said that politicians prefer giving long answers to short questions, and the mainstream media will tend to prefer to report on the sound-bites that can be made from them. Having politicians in the dock in order to explain the foundations of their party’s structure may not necessarily be at the forefront of their minds, especially when their main priority is to deliver the more important concerns of their constituents.

As the first directly elected Mayor in the London borough, Mayor Rahman has defied the odds. After being dropped by the Labour Party, Lutfur Rahman went on to win the mayoral elections of 2010 and was then re-elected as mayor, on a higher turnout, in 2014. Mayor Rahman had become a political martyr after his former party dumped him in favour of the candidate who had come third in the local members’ ballot. This pattern of politicians being dropped by their mainstream parties, only for them then go on and win an election, is rare but not unprecedented. George Galloway and Ken Livingstone are two well known examples of politicians who parted company with the Labour Party and then went on to win as independent candidates.

During his time in office, Mayor Rahman has been able to provide free school meals for every primary school child and Tower Hamlets was one of the first boroughs to provide the London Living Wage to all its contractors – to name just a two of his achievements in office.

What can be said about the individuals who have brought these allegations against Mayor Rahman and Tower Hamlets First? All four accusers have been involved in local politics at some level, even though they have been described in much of the mainstream media merely as “voters”. This description softens their appearance as it makes them look as if they are non party-political. However, the accusers include a former UKIP candidate, a former Labour Party councillor candidate who has never been elected, and an independent candidate who came last in the ward where he stood in the recent local elections. A leading local Tory councillor has assisted the petitioners, in an unofficial capacity: he has stood in the witness box giving evidence to support them and has been passing on notes to the petitioners from his place in the public gallery on other days.

Politics can sometimes get nasty, especially if you’re a minority within a minority, facing a well established political machine. The established parties are accustomed to political manoeuvres and would usually expect to crush a small independent party at the ballot box without much effort.

“Tower Hamlets First” is a term which has evolved to bring together the councillors who supported Lutfur Rahman when he was first removed as Labour’s candidate for mayor, those who supported him subsequently, and candidates who supported him and stood in last May’s council elections. Their aims are evident in the name of their party: always putting Tower Hamlets first – the lives of its residents and the democracy of the political process, which should allow members of local political parties the right to have their choice of candidate respected by their national parties.

Tower Hamlets First still has much to learn, and that comes with experience. What will continue to make the party successful and gain the votes of its constituents is how they deliver on their promises and not necessarily what a court judge orders. They must continue to place the residents of their borough first as there is no national party line to tow. There is no sign of them not remaining a Tower Hamlets-centric party.

Mayor Rahman entered into politics in order to serve the people, not to defend the authenticity of 36,539 Tower Hamlets residents who have voted him in. Members of three political groups, including UKIP, seem not to have accepted either of the two mayoral ballots and their objective, in bringing the petition, is to have the court remove the Mayor from the post those 36,539 voters put him in. Such a removal would undermine the other elected Tower Hamlets First Councillors.

There is a underlying narrative which seeks to undermine the achievements of ethnic and religious minorities in mainstream politics, especially when those ethnic minority elected representatives are delivering on their promises. Which other local council in the whole of the UK, experiences such level of scrutiny? Which other council experiences the same level of attack from the mainstream media along with scrutiny from government-appointed accountants and the High Court?

How much of the opposition to Tower Hamlets First is because it is a successful group of local politicians and activists, from a migrant, Bangladeshi background, of the Islamic faith, who believe and hold dear to their social and democratic values, who have formed a movement within a short space of time? They have taken on the local establishment and won a popular mandate, but the weight of everything thrown against them has put them on the back foot, forcing them to devote their time, energy and money to defending themselves from the punches that are being thrown at them.

It’s easy to be critical in opposition and to proclaim that one is standing up for democracy. The fact of the matter is that Mayor Rahman was democratically elected with an overwhelming majority, on two occasions. The best way to challenge his authority is through the ballot box.