Labour leader Keir Starmer criticized Kemi Badenoch for permitting a member of Roman Abramovich’s legal team to hold a prominent position. The Prime Minister expressed discontent after it was revealed that Shadow Attorney General Lord Wolfson is representing the former Chelsea owner, who is under pressure to contribute £2.5 billion towards Ukraine’s reconstruction.
Lord Wolfson has been engaged in Abramovich’s legal dispute with the Jersey government, investigating the origin of over £5.3 billion in assets tied to him in Jersey. Abramovich contends that the transfer of assets to aid Ukraine must await the conclusion of the Jersey proceedings.
During a heated debate in the House of Commons, Starmer admonished Badenoch for what he described as a lack of judgment and leadership. He urged her to acknowledge the apparent conflict of interest in retaining Lord Wolfson in the shadow cabinet.
Starmer questioned whether it is appropriate for the Shadow Attorney General to be part of the shadow cabinet while representing Abramovich, whose funds are intended for Ukraine. He criticized Badenoch, suggesting that her failure to recognize the conflict of interest reflects poorly on her leadership abilities.
Following sanctions imposed on Abramovich due to his alleged ties to Vladimir Putin, he sold Chelsea FC in 2022. The funds from the sale, currently frozen, were earmarked for humanitarian purposes related to the conflict in Ukraine but are held in a UK bank account amid a legal standoff between Abramovich’s legal team and the government.
In a previous statement, Starmer had warned Abramovich of legal consequences if he failed to relinquish the proceeds from the Chelsea sale. Labour’s Justice Minister Jake Richards also raised concerns about Lord Wolfson’s dual role, emphasizing the potential conflict of interest in advising on matters that directly impact the government’s policies.
The Conservative party dismissed Labour’s accusations, asserting that Lord Wolfson’s involvement pertains to separate legal proceedings in Jersey and not the Chelsea FC issue. They criticized Labour’s stance, emphasizing that barristers represent clients, not causes, and called for an end to what they deemed as political mudslinging.