AN independent candidate standing in Bradford has filed a court case against Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

Azfar Shah Bukhari, who is contesting the Bradford West seat held by Labour’s Naz Shah, filed the case last week in the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Royal Courts of Justice.

The claim, seen by the Telegraph & Argus, asks the court to declare whether Mr Johnson is a “person fit and proper to hold public office”.

It lists Mr Bukhari as the claimant and Alexander Boris De Pfeffel Johnson as the defendant.

It says: “The claimant contends that the defendant has been shown to have acted dishonestly and/or used improper means to achieve his aims.”

The claim points to rulings made by both the Scottish Court of Session and the Supreme Court on the prorogation of Parliament.

It says: “The claimant has locus standi as he is a British citizen, Muslim and from a minority ethnic background, and is more likely to suffer the consequences of the actions and utterances of the defendant because he is a Muslim, member of an minority ethnic group specifically targeted by the defendant.

“The claimant is seeking a declaration as to whether the defendant, a holder of high office, is bound by the principle that public bodies and office holders must not act outside of the law.”

The court is asked to determine whether “acts and utterances” of Mr Johnson, as a holder of high office, are justiciable and whether they “amount to or constitute incitement, encouragement of others” to attack Muslims, particularly Muslim women.

It is also asked, given Mr Johnson’s status, whether his actions and utterances have a greater impact than an ordinary citizen and “should having demonstrably lied or having been dishonest whilst in public office ordinarily preclude one from holding high office of state?”

The claim adds: “Would having dishonestly or recklessly subverted the system of public office for one’s own or another’s gain ordinarily preclude one from holding a high office of state?

“If the court does find that the defendant, whilst a holder of high office, has breached his duty to act within the law, does that preclude the defendant from holding a high office of state on the grounds that he is not a fit and proper person to hold an office of state?”

It goes on to set out: “The claimant contends that the defendant is someone who has, even before holding the office of state or public office, was notorious and able to disseminate certain views and thoughts. The defendant was an established journalist with the Spectator magazine, the Times newspaper.”

The claim sets out examples which Mr Bukhari contends make “a person unfit for public office and so preclude him from holding public or office of state”.

It says:

“In 1988 the defendant was dismissed from the Times Newspaper for fabricating a quote, thus being untruthful which he has not disavowed or disproved.

“In 1999 he lied to his employer, Conrad Black, in terms that he was not going pursue a political career. He broke that promise in 2001 when he stood for parliament in Henley, Oxfordshire.

“In 1989 he accepted that he misrepresented the people of Liverpool regarding the Hillsborough disaster.

“In 2004 he refused to resign and was sacked as Chairman of the Conservative party when he lied about his affair with another journalist, Ms Petronella Wyatt of the Spectator.

“In 2016, in the ‘Vote Leave’ campaign, the defendant made misleading statements that the UK was sending £350 million to Europe, as reported by the UK Statistics Authority.

“The defendant advised Her Majesty the Queen to prorogue Parliament for an improper purpose.”

It adds: “The defendant’s record on sexist, racist and xenophobic comments and views are well recorded. These include:

“1998 – Homophobia – he referred to gay men as “tank-top bumboys”.

“2002 – Racism – he described people from the Commonwealth as “piccaninnies”.

“2002 – Racism – he described black people as having “watermelon smiles”.

“Islamophobia – describing Muslim women in burkas as “letterboxes” and “bank robbers”.”

The claim adds: “The evidence upon which the claimant relies demonstrates that there was an increase in the number of attacks on Muslim women after the defendant’s remarks about Muslim women being like “letterboxes and bank robbers”.

“The level of hate crime has increased.”

It says if the court determines in Mr Bukhari’s favour, he contends he has an “arguable case for a declaration that the defendant is unfit to hold public office”.

The Conservative Party declined to comment.