British Prime Minister Theresa May hoped firing her defense secretary over a leak would put her latest government scandal to rest. But it seems only to have unleashed yet another political storm for the PM, with members of her own party questioning her judgment and opponents demanding the police be called in.
Mrs May, who is clinging to her job despite failing to persuade Parliament to accept her plans for Britain's exit from the European Union, fired Defense Secretary Gavin Williamson on Wednesday, May first.
She blamed him for a leak about Chinese telecoms firm Huawei from a meeting of the Cabinet's National Security Council (NSC) which discusses intelligence and defense strategy. Mr Williamson has continued to deny responsibility, saying he had been judged by a kangaroo court.
Mrs May has said she considers the matter closed. Others have refused to let it rest.
In what world is it acceptable that the Prime Minister should be the arbiter of whether a politician she believes guilty of criminal conduct in office should face a criminal investigation? asked Mr Tom Watson, deputy leader of the opposition Labour Party.
The leak, first reported in the Telegraph newspaper, said Britain would allow Huawei a role in building parts of its 5G network, setting London at odds with Washington, which wants allies to ban the Chinese firm from the next generation of communications technology.
Mr Williamson, previously in charge of party discipline, was an important political ally for Mrs May as she struggled to steer Britain through Brexit, its biggest upheaval in decades, without a majority in Parliament and no clear consensus about the best way to leave the EU.
She announced in March that she would step down if Parliament accepted her Brexit deal, effectively launching a party leadership contest to choose her successor.
The Huawei leak has crystallized doubts about Mrs. May's ability to keep her ministers in check and govern effectively. Meetings of the NSC are attended by senior Cabinet ministers, several of whom are top candidates to replace Mrs. May.
It was widely assumed that the leak was intended to give rivals a chance to portray themselves as stronger than Mrs. May on security.
In firing Mr Williamson on Wednesday, Mrs. May said an investigation had left no other credible explanation for the leak except that he was responsible.
Cabinet office minister David Lidington, who fielded questions at an urgent parliamentary hearing on the affair on Thursday, said that Mrs. May had nevertheless not accused Mr. Williamson of breaking the law.
It was for police, not ministers, to decide whether a criminal offence had been committed, and the government did not intend to refer the matter to prosecutors, he said.
Lawmakers, including Conservatives, called for all the evidence against Mr Williamson to be made public. Natural justice demands that the evidence be produced so his reputation can be salvaged or utterly destroyed, said Mr Desmond Swayne, a Conservative lawmaker. Sky News reported that Mr Williamson also wanted a criminal probe to clear his name.