A POLITICIAN has branded as “a political stitch-up” a cross-party panel’s decision to rebuke him for two breaches of the code of conduct for councillors.

Independent ward councillor for Canons, Councillor Husain Akhtar, was censored on Wednesday April 2 by the hearing working group of Harrow Council’s standards committee over two separate complaints.

The group took the decision after considering a November 2013 report from George Curran, of Frazine Johnson Solicitors, who had been instructed by Jessica Farmer, the head of legal services, to investigate these matters.

His previously-confidential report has just been made public a week after the conclusion of proceedings.

The first complaint came from Councillor Victoria Silver (Labour) on May 28 2013 about an alleged “unwarranted personal attack” by Mr Akhtar, according to Mr Curran’s report, and was followed by a complaint two days later from Councillor Ben Wealthy (Labour) about “unsubstantiated and false allegations and harassment of Councillor Silver”.

It concerned a statement published online and distributed to the press by the Harrow Council For Justice (HCJ) which suggested a Tweet published by her was “racist” because she had made reference to Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe during a message-to-message conversation on the social networking site about Councillor Thaya Idaikkadar’s Independent Labour administration.

The standards committee’s assessment working group had concluded the statement did not breach the code of conduct but Mr Curran was asked to examine whether Mr Akhtar, who served as chairman of HCJ – formerly called Harrow Council for Racial Justice – from 1992 to 2010, continued to exert influence and therefore breaching the code of conduct.

Mr Curran wrote: “Five issues emerged from the papers and initial enquiries that I ahd made that appeared to link Councillor Akhtar with the HCJ: that he was the registrant for the HCJ website after he ceased to be the chairman of HCK; that certain information displayed on the HCJ website appeared to link to him as as its source; that two e-mails, one from the HCJ and the other from Councillor Akhtar appeared to come from the same computer; that text in an email from him to Hugh Peart was almost identical to the content in a public statement made by the HCJ chairman; and that he permitted the HCJ to use his computer equipment in his home for their purposes.

“In response to the complaint made by Councillor Silver, Councillor Akhtar sent a letter to the head of legal practice in which he stated ‘I have no involvement with HCJ since I left them in 2010’.

“This statement appears to be untrue and as a consequence I am of the opinion that Councillor Akhtar had acted in a manner that could reasonably be regarded as bringing his officer into disrepute.

“A pattern of behaviour emerges that evidences a significant degree of involvement by Councillor Akhtar with the Harrow Council for Justice.”

The second complaint investigated by Mr Curran came from Councillor Zarina Khalid (Independent Labour) about “bulling and harassment” from Mr Akhtar.

She was concerned by the publication by HCJ online in July last year a statement entitled ‘Civic Centre is not all that boring!’ that contained numerous pictures of taken from a modelling fashion shoot.

Ms Khalid was upset about the unauthorised distribution of the pictures, and that it happened specifically during the holy month of Ramadan, and was unhappy at the e-mails she received from HCJ about the images.

The release happened two months after Ms Khalid’s appointment as portfolio holder of children and families ahead of Mr Akhtar under the Independent Labour administration that lasted six months.

IT technician Paul Boakes, who runs iHarrow.com website, provided Mr Curran with an analysis of one e-mail from Mr Akhtar and one from HCJ which suggested both messages had been sent from the computer.

Mr Curran said: “Two messages that formed the basis of the analysis may have come from the same machine. However, the report does not identify the physical user which created and sent the messages.

“In interview Councillor Akhtar said he allows HCJ to use his electronic equipment and systems which are located in his office at his home.

“This is an arrangement he has previously disclosed.

“Mr Akhtar denies that he transmitted any material relating to Councillor Khalid to which she refers in her complaint.

“Based on the information contained in the report from Mr Boakes and the interview with Councillor Akhtar, I am of the opinion the complaint against Councillor Akhtar is not substantiated.”

The hearing working group, consisting of Councillor Simon Williams (Conservative), Councillor Margaret Davine (Labour) and Councillor Asad Omar (Independent Labour) and an independent chairman James Coyle, considered Mr Curran report’s and unanimously agreed Mr Akhtar had breached the code of conduct in relation to both complaints.

The group issued three sanctions – publish its findings online, publish its findings officially in the local press and advising Mr Akhtar to undertake training.

Mr Akhtar did not attend the hearing and told the Observer afterwards: “The outcome of the hearing does not surprise me because in my opinion it is nothing more than a political stitch-up, most probably under the influence of the controversial leader of the council who is known to have a hatred for me, to damage my chances at the council election in May.”

Mr Akhtar, a former school inspector, joined the council as a Conservative in a Canons ward by-election in December 2007, crossed the floor to Labour in November 2012, broke away with the rebel Independent Labour group in May 2013 and turned Independent later that year.

Mr Akhtar is standing as a Marlborough and Wealdstone Independent, in Wealdstone ward, in the local elections on May 22 while colleague Dr Pravin Shah – the HCJ’s general and legal secretary – contests the Marlborough ward.

n Mr Akhtar complained to council’s legal department about Ms Silver’s Tweet on May 15 2013. The committee’s assessment working group considered in private in July last year and unanimously decided she had not breached the code of conduct and the matter was taken no further.