Reform UK’s Nigel Farage hits back at Rupert Lowe over ‘witch hunt’ claim in furious row_D
Nigel Farage hit back at Rupert Lowe after the ousted MP accused him of a “witch hunt”. The Reform leader claimed that there had been ongoing behavioural issues with the Great Yarmouth MP.
Mr Lowe had the Reform whip suspended and was reported to police last week over claims of threatening violence against the party chairman and allegations of office bullying, which he denies. Reform said an independent KC had been appointed to look into the bullying claims. Splits had emerged a day earlier when he questioned Mr Farage’s leadership in an outspoken interview.
Rupert Lowe has had the Reform whip suspended (Image: Getty)
Asked about Mr Lowe’s “witch hunt” comment, Mr Farage told GB News: “What I do know for a fact is that on February 29 Mr Lowe was informed that there was a parliamentary investigation into two separate allegations of bullying.
“We didn’t know that at the time. Shortly after that he gave that interview to the Daily Mail.
“When we found out one of our MPs was facing these accusations without prejudging anything we decided to appoint an independent KC to take a look at the situation ourselves. Since that moment things have got a little bit out of control.”
Pressed on the timing of Reform chairman Zia Yusuf’s report to the police, Mr Farage added: “I think that particular accusation comes from our party chairman and that didn’t just happen months ago, it’s actually happened in the space of the last few days as well.
“That’s obviously a very serious thing, the police are following this up and they are conducting a full investigation.
“Look there is a behavioural problem here. There has been a behavioural problem for some months. Outbursts, anger, that kind of thing.
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
“Frankly I tried to put it to the back of my mind, we’ve all tried to put it to the back of our minds.”
Mr Farage also denied that he was the problem in the rift.
He said: “I don’t fall out with anybody, they fall out with me. Most of the team I work with in this party are people that have been around me for over a decade. I am a team player, I do work with people, I do it for the long-term.”
The Clacton MP added that he “could do without” the civil war that has engulfed his insurgent party.
He said: “It’s a huge distraction for the party, for me, for everybody. I’ve spent seven months since the general election trying to get this party match fit to fight the local elections in England on May 1 and that is still my focus.”
Mr Farage’s comments come after Mr Lowe claimed he had been kicked out because he questioned Mr Farage’s leadership.
He wrote on X: “It is a vindictive witch hunt, all because I asked awkward questions of Nigel.”
Nigel Farage and Reform UK Hit Back at Rupert Lowe Over ‘Witch Hunt’ Claim in Furious Row
Nigel Farage’s bitter dispute with Rupert Lowe has exposed a deep divide within Britain’s political right, with accusations of a “witch hunt”, questions about party leadership and a struggle over who should represent voters demanding tougher immigration controls.
The confrontation began after Lowe, then the Reform UK MP for Great Yarmouth, was suspended from the party in March 2025. Lowe insisted that the allegations against him were politically motivated, while Farage argued that Reform had a responsibility to investigate concerns about conduct within its organisation.
What followed was a highly public dispute that threatened to overshadow Reform’s attempt to establish itself as a serious contender for government. Former colleagues weighed in, competing accounts of events circulated publicly, and the disagreement became a test of Farage’s leadership.
The row also raised a broader question: how can a party that campaigns against the political establishment demonstrate that it operates according to clear, fair and transparent standards internally?
Farage defends Reform’s decision
Farage maintained that Reform could not simply ignore the allegations involving Lowe. He argued that the party had responsibilities towards its staff and that an independent investigation was an appropriate way to examine the concerns.
The dispute included allegations of bullying involving two female members of staff, which Lowe denied. Reform also raised a separate allegation that Lowe had threatened its chairman, Zia Yusuf. Lowe rejected that accusation as well.
Farage publicly defended the decision to suspend Lowe, saying that the party had a duty of care to people working for it and that the matter needed to be handled properly. He also described other incidents in which he claimed Lowe’s conduct had caused concern.
Lowe disputed Farage’s account and argued that the allegations were being used to damage his reputation after he had questioned the party’s leadership and internal structure.
The two men therefore presented sharply different interpretations of the same political crisis. Farage framed the issue around standards of conduct and the need to investigate complaints. Lowe portrayed his suspension as an attempt to silence criticism from within the party.
It is important to distinguish between those competing claims and established findings. Allegations, denials and political interpretations are not interchangeable, and the fact that a dispute becomes public does not, by itself, establish the motives of those involved.
Contemporary reporting by The Independent and Sky News documented the competing statements and the appointment of an independent legal investigator. <Cite refs={[“turn523044search0″,”turn523044search1”]}/>
Rupert Lowe’s ‘witch hunt’ accusation
Lowe responded forcefully to his suspension, describing the action against him as a “witch hunt”. He claimed that Reform’s leadership was attempting to undermine him because he had raised questions about the party’s management and Farage’s leadership style.
He also disputed the allegations and challenged the way the party had presented the situation publicly. His central argument was that he was being judged before the claims had been properly established.
The phrase “witch hunt” became a defining feature of the dispute because it turned an internal disciplinary matter into a broader argument about power, accountability and political dissent.
For Lowe and his supporters, the controversy raised concerns about whether an organisation that advocates democratic change should provide meaningful opportunities for its own members and elected representatives to question its leadership.
For Reform’s leadership, however, the existence of internal disagreements did not remove its responsibility to address complaints and establish whether standards had been breached.
Both questions are relevant to political accountability. A party must be able to investigate credible concerns about conduct, but the process should also be fair to the person accused, protect those making complaints and avoid presenting unproven allegations as established facts.
The public nature of the dispute made those responsibilities more difficult to manage. Statements from politicians and supporters quickly became part of a wider argument about the party’s credibility, with each side attempting to persuade the public that its interpretation was the more convincing one.
The role of Zia Yusuf
Reform chairman Zia Yusuf became another central figure in the controversy because of the separate allegation concerning a threat against him.
Lowe denied making threats of physical violence. The disagreement contributed to the impression that Reform was struggling to contain a dispute between senior figures at a time when the party was trying to build its national standing.
The police investigation into the alleged threat was subsequently dropped in May 2025, according to reporting by Conservative Post. <Cite refs={[“turn523044news10”]}/>
That development was significant, but it should not be confused with a determination of every issue raised during the wider dispute. The allegations involving staff conduct and the separate police matter were distinct questions, and conclusions about one should not automatically be applied to the other.
The episode nevertheless intensified scrutiny of how Reform handled the controversy. Critics questioned the timing and presentation of the allegations, while the party’s defenders argued that serious concerns should be investigated rather than dismissed because they involved a prominent politician.
The lesson extends beyond Reform. Political organisations need procedures that are independent enough to command confidence, clear enough for those involved to understand and careful enough to protect the reputations and rights of everyone concerned.
A dispute that threatened party unity
The fallout extended beyond Farage and Lowe themselves. Former Brexit Party colleagues and other political figures entered the debate, while former Reform deputy leader Ben Habib criticised the party’s leadership and questioned its internal culture.
Habib’s intervention reflected a wider disagreement over whether Reform should operate primarily as a vehicle for Farage’s political leadership or develop a more collective decision-making structure.
That distinction matters for a party seeking to govern. A strong leader can provide a clear public message, coordinate a campaign and make the organisation recognisable to voters. But a party also needs processes for resolving disagreements, selecting candidates, scrutinising policy and holding senior figures accountable.
If internal disputes are repeatedly fought through public statements, they can distract from policy development and leave supporters uncertain about the organisation’s priorities.
At the same time, public disagreement does not necessarily prove that a party is incapable of functioning. Political movements often contain competing views about strategy and leadership. The question is whether they can resolve those differences through credible procedures without allowing every dispute to become a prolonged public confrontation.
For Reform, the Lowe episode became an early test of whether it could combine a centralised public leadership with internal processes capable of withstanding scrutiny.
From internal conflict to a rival political movement
The split did not end Lowe’s political ambitions. He went on to establish Restore Britain, a separate political movement seeking to attract voters who favour a tougher approach to immigration and national sovereignty.
The emergence of a rival organisation gave the dispute a lasting political consequence. Rather than simply returning to the Reform fold, Lowe developed an alternative platform and continued to criticise Farage.
In August 2026, Lowe extended an olive branch to Farage, suggesting that the two sides might cooperate for what he described as the good of the country. Farage initially appeared open to discussion but later expressed strong reservations about Lowe and people associated with his movement. <Cite refs={[“turn523044news15″,”turn523044search11″,”turn523044search12”]}/>
The possibility of cooperation illustrates the complicated relationship between political rivals who compete for similar voters. They may share some objectives while disagreeing over leadership, methods and the practical details of policy.
An agreement could potentially reduce competition between the two movements in some constituencies. Yet cooperation would require both sides to resolve questions of trust, policy and organisational control.
Their shared interest in tighter immigration controls does not automatically mean that they agree on every issue or that their supporters would accept a political pact.
What the row means for Reform UK
The confrontation has left Farage with a difficult balancing act. He must maintain discipline within Reform while demonstrating that the party is more than a personal political vehicle.
He also has to ensure that internal disputes do not overwhelm discussions about the issues that matter to voters, including living costs, public services, immigration enforcement and economic growth.
Lowe, meanwhile, faces a different challenge. Establishing a rival movement requires more than criticising the party he left. Restore Britain must demonstrate that it can recruit candidates, organise campaigns, develop credible policies and attract support beyond those already dissatisfied with Reform.
The competition could provide voters with additional choices, but it could also divide support among organisations seeking to appeal to similar constituencies. The electoral consequences would depend on local circumstances and how voters respond to the parties’ competing programmes.
Ultimately, the “witch hunt” row illustrates how quickly a political disagreement can become a contest over legitimacy and leadership. Farage argued that Reform had to uphold standards of conduct. Lowe argued that the party had treated him unfairly and attempted to undermine him.
The lasting significance of the dispute will depend on the evidence surrounding the separate allegations, the transparency of the processes used to address them and the political strength of the organisations that emerged from the split.
For voters, the essential question is not simply which politician won the argument. It is whether the parties seeking their support can demonstrate fairness, accountability and the ability to turn promises into effective government.
