A King’s Counsel has raised serious concerns about the independence of an internal Reform UK investigation into allegations of harassment against Great Yarmouth MP Rupert Lowe.
In a newly published legal review commissioned by Mr Lowe, the suspended MP claims that the process was “fundamentally flawed, unfair, and influenced by political motivations.” The findings cast doubt on the impartiality of the party’s actions and raise fresh questions about the handling of serious allegations within the Reform UK ranks.
Reform UK announced last month that an “independent KC” had found “credible evidence of unlawful harassment of two women by both Mr Lowe and male members of his team.” The party said the investigation supported Mr Lowe’s suspension from the party whip, citing “serious bullying” and “derogatory” remarks made about women in his offices.
Mr Lowe, who has consistently denied all allegations, was also reported to police over claims he made verbal threats towards Reform UK chairman Zia Yusuf.
However, the newly released review — commissioned by law firm Irwin Mitchell LLP and authored by Gemma White KC — has challenged both the process and the independence of the original investigation, which was conducted by Jacqueline Perry KC.
Ms White’s review found that witness statements were not collected independently, but rather “produced” by the investigating KC following extensive telephone interviews with complainants. It also claims that no clear terms of reference were ever agreed upon by the party before the investigation began — a procedural omission which Ms White describes as “deeply concerning.”
Crucially, the report also states that Mr Lowe was not given a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations before the final report was submitted to Reform UK. “In addition to being unfair to Mr Lowe,” Ms White wrote, “the sequence of events… gives rise to real questions as to the extent to which the KC conducted the investigation independently of the influence of the party.”
She further questioned whether Ms Perry had “recent experience” in conducting independent inquiries of this nature and suggested this may have contributed to the lack of proper procedural conduct.
Mr Lowe, responding to the review, launched a stinging attack on his former party: “In 67 years, I have never seen such vile and unprofessional behaviour — including, but not limited to, publicly shaming my staff without even giving them the opportunity to respond to the false and damaging allegations.”
He went on to accuse the party leadership of orchestrating a “concerted smear campaign” against him, following internal tensions. “I asked reasonable questions of Farage, after months of pushing behind the scenes,” he said. “My punishment for bruising his ego? A campaign to ruin my name and reputation. Nigel Farage must never be Prime Minister.”
More Read
Mr Lowe was one of five Reform UK MPs elected during last year’s general election, a significant moment in the party’s political journey. However, the internal fallout and this latest challenge to its disciplinary procedures may cast a shadow over its future credibility.
The allegations of bullying and harassment remain unresolved. While the original investigation concluded there was “credible evidence,” the legitimacy of that conclusion is now under scrutiny. Reform UK has not publicly responded to the claims made in Ms White’s report, despite being approached for comment.
As it stands, the affair raises troubling questions about how political parties manage internal complaints, particularly when reputations and political careers are at stake. With both sides maintaining opposing narratives, the lack of transparency could have lasting consequences — not only for Mr Lowe but for Reform UK’s commitment to fairness and due process.
For now, the future of Rupert Lowe within the party appears uncertain. And as the political storm continues, so too does the need for greater clarity about how such investigations should be conducted — free from politics, bias, and behind-the-scenes influence.
