In the end, perhaps the only real surprise was why the Prime Minister allowed his embattled friend, Tulip Siddiq, to linger so long before her inevitable resignation.
Why didn’t she go sooner? True, Sir Keir Starmer and the now-former City Minister have long been allies. But even in a government no stranger to controversy, Ms Siddiq’s scandals were far beyond a mere “distraction,” as she described her resignation yesterday.
Three years ago, I began investigating Siddiq for The Mail on Sunday. What I uncovered raised troubling questions about her suitability for public office.
Ms Siddiq, 42, and I share Bangladeshi origins, and I had followed her political rise with interest. In 2015, she captured the Labour nomination for Hampstead, a seat synonymous with progressive ideals, endorsed by none other than Dame Emma Thompson. Yet her connections soon became a matter of public concern.
In 2013, Siddiq and her family visited Moscow, posing for photographs with Vladimir Putin. Labour dismissed her presence as unrelated to official delegations, insisting she was merely attending a family event. However, this visit coincided with her aunt, Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, signing a billion-pound nuclear deal with Russia.
Hasina’s regime, plagued by corruption and human rights abuses, cast a long shadow over Siddiq’s career. Critics alleged Hasina’s political opponents faced repression, disappearance, and even death. Ms Siddiq, despite her apparent distance from her aunt’s governance, found herself increasingly entangled in its controversies.
By 2022, Siddiq was publicly denouncing financial corruption, accusing then-Chancellor Rishi Sunak of improprieties related to his wife’s tax affairs. She also decried the use of offshore tax havens to launder Russian wealth into Britain. Yet, The Mail on Sunday revealed startling inconsistencies in her own affairs.
Her mother’s £1.2 million Golders Green property was registered via the Isle of Man, a known offshore haven. The property’s ownership, hidden behind layers of shell companies, ultimately linked back to Salman F Rahman, one of Bangladesh’s wealthiest tycoons.
The hypocrisy didn’t end there. Siddiq’s flat near King’s Cross, acquired in 2004 during her student days, also raised eyebrows. Land Registry records suggested it was either bought outright or gifted by Abdul Motalif, a property developer with ties to Hasina. Labour insisted Siddiq’s parents had purchased the flat, but Siddiq threatened legal action when probed further.
When Labour’s landslide victory in 2023 elevated Siddiq to City Minister, tasked with combating financial crime, the irony became palpable. Investigations revealed she had failed to declare rental income from her Finchley home within the mandated 28-day period. While she apologised, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards confirmed she breached the rules.
Further scrutiny exposed her Finchley residence as owned by Abdul Karim, a close ally of the Awami League. Meanwhile, Siddiq’s claim to have no involvement in Bangladeshi politics was undermined when Bangladesh’s Anti-Corruption Commission began probing her for alleged kickbacks related to the Moscow nuclear deal.
My investigation took me to Dhaka, where I unearthed claims Siddiq and her relatives embezzled nearly £3.9 billion from the deal. Siddiq denied wrongdoing, attributing the allegations to political targeting. Yet, her confession that the King’s Cross flat was indeed gifted by a businessman close to Hasina further dented her credibility.
The Labour Party, initially defensive, apologised for providing inaccurate information in 2022, stating they acted “in good faith.” However, Siddiq’s admission to misleading the public cemented her fall from grace.
Sir Laurie Magnus, the Prime Minister’s ethics adviser, acknowledged Siddiq misled inquiries about her property dealings but found no evidence of broader improprieties. Nevertheless, her resignation reflects the weight of public and media scrutiny.
More Read
Siddiq’s departure prompted an outpouring of support from Bangladeshis, who viewed her as emblematic of her aunt’s repressive regime. Her tenure has left questions unanswered, not just about her conduct but also about the lingering shadows of political and familial entanglements.
As Siddiq’s political career fades, her story serves as a cautionary tale of ambition, privilege, and the perils of hypocrisy in public life.
