Boris Johnson is to a face a disciplinary investigation by the Conservative party following a string of complaints about his comments on the burqa, triggering a fresh bout of infighting between his supporters and critics.

The former foreign secretary could ultimately be suspended or expelled, while one peer who made a formal complaint said he had been told that if Johnson were to apologise now it would not halt the process.

Party sources said dozens of complaints had been received after Johnson wrote a column in Monday’s Telegraph that compared women in burqas to letterboxes and bank robbers.



An independent investigator will have to decide whether the complaints are sufficiently serious to appoint a three-person panel to examine the matter further. Johnson will be asked if he wants to provide a statement in his own defence.

Lord Sheikh, a Conservative peer who submitted a complaint, said he wanted a thorough investigation. “I would be very, very unhappy if a panel was not appointed,” he said, adding that he had been reassured that Johnson could no longer get off if he said sorry. “I was told by a party official that if he apologised now, the process would not stop.”

The party’s code of conduct – against which Johnson will be judged – says that MPs and other holders of public office should “not use their position to bully, abuse, victimise, harass or unlawfully discriminate against others” and should “foster respect and tolerance”.

Johnson, who is on holiday, has refused to apologise for his controversial remarks despite calls by the Tory party hierarchy. He was asked to do so by the party’s chairman, Brandon Lewis, on Tuesday and was told by Theresa May to be more careful with his language, but he ignored both.



Party officials tried to contain the row by downplaying the significance of the step, arguing that appointing an investigator was “an automatic process”, but allies of Johnson complained that he was being victimised.

Ben Bradley, the party’s former vice-chair, said: “I can’t see how they can launch an investigation when the comments are in a national newspaper; what evidence are they going to gather? My constituents who broadly agree with Boris are going to wonder why the party are now investigating him.”

Conor Burns, Johnson’s former parliamentary private secretary, said: “When we have reached the stage when you cannot express an opinion it is a rum do in the party of freedom.” Other Tory MPs complained that it had revived a news story that was otherwise going away by announcing the investigation.

If a panel is appointed, at least one member will be independent, and most likely a lawyer. One will be appointed by Graham Brady, the chairman of the party’s backbench 1922 Committee, and two others by the party, although it is not clear who will appoint them after Lewis indicated that he would not do so in order to head off accusations of bias against Johnson.

Their first task will be to determine if Johnson’s behaviour was in breach of the party’s code and recommend by whom the complaint should be resolved. At that stage, Johnson’s fate could be determined by May or Lewis.

The code of conduct adds that potential punishments include, but are not necessarily limited to, “suspension of membership or expulsion from the party”. A Conservative spokesman said: “The code of conduct process is strictly confidential.”

Earlier on Thursday, Sajjad Karim, the party’s MEP for North-West England, said Johnson’s case meant that the Conservatives party had to decide whether it would be “a genuine one-nation political force or an English nationalist movement”.

Karim told the Guardian: “Boris is playing to the gallery that exists at the right of the party” and by refusing to apologise was “positioning himself as the great defender of the right [that] some believe they have to say whatever they like with no regard of consequences for others”.



He added: “This further pushes the boundaries of acceptable political debate into an ever more extreme place.”

After Karim’s comments, a letter signed by about 100 Muslim women who wear the burqa or niqab was sent to Lewis, backing calls for action against Johnson and his supporters, who include the MP Nadine Dorries.

The letter said: “Given a deliberate choice was made to inflame tensions in a way which makes it easier for bigots to justify hate crimes against us, we concur with the Conservative peer Lord Sheikh who has demanded that the whip be withdrawn from Johnson.

“Furthermore, given the responses from other MPs, specifically Ms Dorries, and the broader concerns raised by the Muslim Council of Britain amongst others, we believe there must now be an independent inquiry into Islamophobia in the party to tackle this issue once and for all.”

Dorries had said in an interview defending Johnson: “There is no place in our society for women who are forced to cover up from head to toe.”

Dal Babu, a former chief superintendent in the Metropolitan police, said that Johnson’s comments were racist and “likely to stoke violence against Muslim women”, in an article for the Guardian.

He said there was a “a pattern of hate crime in the UK: after terrorist attacks and when politicians make pronouncements about the Muslim community, Islamophobic attacks increase”.

However, the Metropolitan police commissioner, Cressida Dick, said Johnson’s remarks about Muslim women wearing the burqa would not “reach the bar” for a criminal offence.

“I spoke last night to my very experienced officers who deal with hate crime and, although we have not yet received any allegation of such a crime, I can tell you that my preliminary view having spoken to them is that what Johnson said would not reach the bar for a criminal offence. He did not commit a criminal offence,” she said.

Johnson was rebuked for failing to seek official guidance before resuming his Telegraph column following his resignation as foreign secretary.

The advisory committee on business appointments, which vets appointments by ex-ministers and senior officials, said it was “unacceptable” that he signed a contract with the newspaper before contacting them. It also complained that he did not observe the three-month waiting period, which is normal before former ministers take up outside jobs.



