Cabinet Minister Kemi Badenoch has been caught in a dramatic contradiction after private WhatsApp messages emerged, directly challenging her public statements about communications with former Post Office chairman Henry Staunton.
The Smoking Gun Messages
Leaked WhatsApp exchanges reveal that Badenoch did indeed contact Staunton after his dismissal, despite her vehement denials in Parliament and to the media. The Business Secretary had previously claimed she only spoke to Staunton once following his removal, but the messages tell a different story entirely.
Parliamentary Deception Exposed
During a tense session in the House of Commons, Badenoch told MPs: "I had one conversation with Henry Staunton after he was dismissed." This statement now appears fundamentally misleading given the electronic evidence showing multiple points of contact.
The revelations have sparked fury among opposition parties and transparency campaigners, who accuse the minister of deliberately concealing the truth about her involvement in the ongoing Post Office Horizon scandal aftermath.
Mounting Pressure for Accountability
Labour's Deputy Leader, Angela Rayner, didn't mince words: "This is yet another example of a Conservative minister who thinks the rules don't apply to them. The public deserves honesty and transparency, especially when it comes to something as serious as the Post Office scandal."
The Liberal Democrats have joined calls for a formal investigation, suggesting Badenoch may have breached the Ministerial Code by providing inaccurate information to Parliament.
What This Means for the Post Office Inquiry
This development throws fresh uncertainty over the government's handling of the Post Office crisis, which saw hundreds of sub-postmasters wrongly convicted due to faulty Horizon software. The timing couldn't be worse, as public trust in the government's management of the scandal continues to deteriorate.
As pressure mounts for a full explanation, all eyes are on Downing Street to see whether they'll stand by their minister or demand accountability for what appears to be a clear case of contradictory evidence.
