Boris Johnson Breached Rules on Post-Office Business Contacts

Published: 11 October 2025. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online.

Boris Johnson, the former UK prime minister, has been found to have breached rules designed to prevent the misuse of contacts and influence gained while in public office, according to an ethics watchdog. The Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (Acoba) concluded that Johnson failed to cooperate fully with inquiries into his conduct after leaving office, prompting concerns over potential exploitation of his former position for private gain.

The findings follow revelations published last month by the Guardian, which examined a collection of documents from Johnson’s private office, known as “The Boris Files.” These materials suggested that Johnson repeatedly ignored rules restricting former ministers from leveraging government contacts to benefit private ventures. According to the reports, Johnson allegedly lobbied for a billion-dollar deal in the United Arab Emirates and used connections within the Saudi government, cultivated during his tenure as prime minister, to promote the interests of consultancy firms seeking lucrative contracts.

Following the Guardian’s reporting, Acoba formally questioned Johnson about his interactions with Better Earth, a consultancy targeting the Saudi government, and Bia Advisory, a venture pursuing investment opportunities in the UAE. The watchdog sought clarity on whether Johnson had mentioned either company during meetings with senior foreign officials, including Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Khaldoon al-Mubarak, CEO of an Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth fund.

Johnson responded to the inquiry on 15 September, denying that he had acted improperly. He claimed that the Guardian’s reporting was “based on material illegally hacked by a hostile state actor” and suggested the documents contained “false or misleading” assertions. He also insisted that he had followed Acoba’s rules at all times. However, he did not provide direct factual denials of the specific allegations raised by the committee.

Acoba, under the leadership of chair Isabel Doverty, found Johnson’s responses inadequate and determined that he had breached the rules. Doverty described Johnson’s refusal to engage substantively with the committee’s questions as “highly disappointing” and emphasised that public trust in government requires full accountability from former ministers.

Johnson’s history of circumventing Acoba’s rules is extensive. Past controversies include seeking retrospective approval to become a £275,000-a-year columnist for the Telegraph, applying for a £500,000-a-year column for the Daily Mail just half an hour before its announcement, and failing to answer questions regarding meetings with Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and a hedge-fund manager who subsequently paid him £240,000. In each case, Acoba’s enforcement mechanism was limited to reporting breaches to the Cabinet Office.

Despite Acoba’s formal findings, no further action is expected against Johnson, as he is no longer subject to the business appointment rules. A government spokesperson highlighted that new arrangements for overseeing post-office appointments will come into effect from 13 October, including the closure of Acoba. Under these reforms, former ministers found to have seriously breached the rules could be asked to repay ministerial severance payments, reflecting a broader effort to restore public confidence and accountability.

During his time as prime minister, Johnson issued a version of the ministerial code that explicitly enshrined principles of integrity, objectivity, transparency, honesty, and leadership in the public interest. The code also outlined the restrictions now found to have been breached, intended to prevent former ministers from exploiting privileged contacts or insider knowledge for personal or commercial gain. Despite this, Johnson opted not to answer substantive questions from Acoba, leaving the watchdog with no choice but to report a breach.

Acoba’s investigation also highlighted Johnson’s use of high-profile contacts in sensitive foreign governments. Leaked documents indicated that Johnson had met senior Saudi officials and influential UAE figures during his premiership and allegedly attempted to leverage these relationships for the benefit of private consultancy ventures. While Johnson asserted that Bia Advisory had never been formally established and that he had only joined Better Earth after receiving Acoba approval, the committee was not satisfied with the explanations, particularly given the lack of clarity on whether foreign contacts were used to pitch these ventures.

The Guardian, which reviewed the leaked documents, has confirmed no evidence that the materials were false or misleading. The files were obtained via Distributed Denial of Secrets, a US-based non-profit that archives leaked data. The organisation has stated that it does not know the original source of the leak, but the materials provided a detailed record of Johnson’s post-office activities.

Doverty stressed that Acoba has a responsibility to investigate any allegation of rule-breaking, regardless of how the information comes to light, noting that public interest in ensuring ethical conduct remains paramount. She added that Johnson’s lack of cooperation prevented the committee from establishing a full understanding of his actions, leaving unresolved questions about the propriety of his lobbying and interactions with foreign governments.

The breach underscores ongoing concerns about the potential for former political leaders to exploit their positions for private advantage. Critics argue that the current mechanisms for enforcement are weak, relying on self-reporting and limited follow-up. While Acoba can issue findings and communicate breaches to the Cabinet Office, it cannot impose fines or criminal penalties. The case highlights the challenges of maintaining ethical oversight for individuals with extensive political and commercial networks.

Johnson’s conduct adds to a series of high-profile controversies that have dogged his post-premiership career. From media columns to advisory roles, his activities have repeatedly raised questions about the boundaries between public service and private enterprise. The latest findings serve as a reminder of the importance of robust oversight and transparency mechanisms for former ministers, particularly when international financial interests are involved.

The government has indicated that reforms to the post-office appointment system aim to strengthen accountability and public confidence. By closing Acoba and introducing stricter rules for repayment of severance payments in cases of serious breaches, ministers will be incentivised to adhere to ethical standards and avoid any appearance of impropriety. While Johnson himself may not face further consequences due to his departure from the rules’ jurisdiction, the case is expected to inform future policy on managing former officials’ activities in the private sector.

In conclusion, Boris Johnson’s refusal to fully cooperate with Acoba, coupled with evidence suggesting potential exploitation of high-level contacts for private gain, has led the ethics watchdog to formally record a breach of rules designed to uphold integrity and transparency in public office. The case highlights ongoing debates about the effectiveness of current oversight mechanisms, the responsibilities of former political leaders, and the need for strong governance standards to maintain public trust.