Afzal Akram is a councillor for Valley ward; ‘Voluntary Party Manager’ for the Conservative Party (previously having been ‘Senior Campaign Manager’); Deputy Leader of the Conservative Group in the Town Hall; and member of two important Scrutiny Committees, those covering Budget and Performance, and Health.
It might be imagined that someone so senior must know the ins and outs of what he should declare on his register of interests (ROI) form.
But a little digging reveals that Cllr. Akram apparently doesn’t.
The LBWF Code of Conduct for Members (based upon the Localism Act of 2011) requires that councillors must register ‘Any employment, office, trade, profession or vocation carried on for profit or gain’, and any unpaid ‘directorships’ and positions of ‘general control or management’, within 28 days of the date when each new appointment commenced.
This Cllr. Akram has failed to do.
Cllr. Akram has four business interests, one dating to 2022, and three to 2023.
At the start of April this year, none were declared on his ROI.
Then, in response to a complaint from a resident, LBWF Monitoring Officer Mark Hynes started investigating, and in the last few days, Cllr. Akram suddenly has declared two of the interests, though, without explanation, not the other two. The following table summarises the relevant details and timelines:
Some will be surprised by this revelation, even shocked. After all, Cllr. Akram is both experienced and high-ranking, while the rules are crystal clear.
But if Cllr. Akram’s career is examined in its entirety, it becomes apparent that, as the following paragraphs will show, he sometimes sails close to the wind, risking controversy, meaning his ROI antics are perhaps less of a surprise than initially they might seem.
First, a word on Cllr. Akram’s personal political evolution, as it is quite unusual.
Cllr. Akram originally came to prominence in the years after 2006, when in short order he became a Labour councillor, a Labour Cabinet member, and finally the Labour chief whip.
Subsequently, he de-camped to Ealing and fought an election for UKIP; and then returned to Waltham Forest and joined the Conservatives, with their new Leader, Cllr. Emma Best, appointing him her number two a couple of years ago.
What of the controversies? These are some of the most amusing.
In August 2012, Cllr. Akram stayed at the Marriott Hotel in Karachi for several days on a well-publicised mission to recruit students for his old alma mater, Waltham Forest College.
A local company called Aaryans Services Ltd. hosted Cllr. Akram’s stay, introduced him as ‘Director Admissions Waltham Forest College London’ in one iteration, ‘Director of Strategic Partnership @ Waltham Forest College UK’ in another, and urged those interested to come in and meet him for ‘on spot admissions’.
There was, however, one fly in the ointment. Because when the Principle of Waltham Forest College was shortly afterwards asked to comment, he responded: ‘Mr. Akram is not and as far as I know has never been a paid employee of Waltham Forest College in any capacity’, and ‘is not a member of staff’.
The next year, a Town Hall disciplinary hearing found Cllr. Akram ‘guilty of trying to fix a controversial planning application vote’ (as the Waltham Forest Guardian story put it), alleging that, amongst other things, he used ‘eye contact and gesticulating’ in an attempt to sway his peers on the planning committee.
Some believed the charges were trumped up, the product of infighting in the leadership clique, but anyway, the Labour Party fired him as chief whip, barred him from standing for committees for six months, and ordered him to relinquish his posts on other public bodies.
And so onwards to 2016, and further merriment. Cllr. Akram had returned to Waltham Forest from Ealing, and, perhaps with possible suitors in mind, announced himself as Chairman and CEO of the ‘Smile Group of Businesses’, which sounded very impressive indeed.
The only trouble was that, as Company’s House filings revealed, the Smile Group was a mediocrity, at best, with its three constituent companies performing as follows:
Presumably, Cllr. Akram’s natural optimism had run ahead of itself.
What can be said is that concurrently he certainly was in humorous mood, promoting a specialist tea, and posting the following on social media:
No surprise, then, that, with free samples in the offing, the Conservatives fell for his charms.
Turning from the past back to the present, two further observations are merited.
First, it is important to underline that though failing to fill in a ROI form correctly is in itself a relatively trivial offence, it still has a pernicious impact on local democracy, since it prevents residents from knowing about the attributes – or not – of those they are being invited to vote for. Of course, it’s true that previous Labour Leaders Chris Robbins and Clare Coghill both fudged their ROIs, too, as have a gaggle of Labour rank and filers (see links). But that accepted, there is no good reason why Cllr. Akram should ape their arrogance.
Second, it is reasonable to query Mr. Hynes’ role in the events described. The law states that while councillors must always declare any relevant interests, it is each authority’s Monitoring Officer who ‘must establish and maintain’ the ROI.
That gives Mr. Hynes quite a lot of power. The odd thing is, though, he doesn’t seem very keen on using it. Mr. Hynes was informed about Cllr. Akram’s failings on 10 April, with the complainant supplying virtually all the relevant evidence, and subsequently providing further research assistance for free.
Yet here we are, 29 working days later, and Mr. Hynes still has not delivered his conclusions, or explained his intentions about any related disciplinary actions.
If Mr. Hynes is so relaxed about the ROI, it is perhaps not surprising that councillors follow suit.
PS These screenshots, taken today, show that Cllr. Akram treats Companies House rules with equal insouciance:
