Me.. and the Advisor

A well-known figure frequently records his opinions on specific topics and distributes these audio and video recordings on social media. He also speaks extensively in diwaniyas (traditional gathering spaces), asking attendees to record his meetings and sharing them on social media. He consistently reminds his audience that he is an advisor and a member of the judiciary. However, investigations reveal that he has no genuine connection to the judicial system and has never formally practiced law, despite having held important administrative positions related to the judicial sector.

His statements reminded me of a personal experience I went through forty years ago, which I may have written about years prior. In the 1980s, I was living in London and, along with others, owned and managed several companies, primarily in real estate. Our offices were located near the Churchill Hotel, specifically in the former private residence of the wealthy Portman family, who still own all the properties surrounding the square named after them. The building consisted of four floors. My late friend, Yaqoub Al-Ghanim, and I occupied the ground floor, while we invested the remaining floors for our own account.

One day, one of the office tenants in the building requested a meeting. When he arrived, he complained about the lack of toilet paper and soap in the company restrooms. I told him that I had been out of the country and that perhaps the cleaning company had neglected the matter during my absence. In a bid to boast, I informed the complainant, Mr. Gold, that we were serious businessmen who had come to Britain as investors and established companies with a capital of three million pounds. Mr. Gold apologized, stating that he had never intended to insult me or question my seriousness.

A week or so later, a Value Added Tax (VAT) inspector visited to review our records and assess our compliance with tax obligations. I reiterated to him that we were serious businessmen, that our company was in real estate, and that its capital amounted to three million pounds, implying that this tax did not apply to us. He left satisfied. Before the end of the month, the General Tax Inspector visited us. I repeated the same story and placed all accounting records at his disposal. Fortunately, he did not bother to open them, contented himself with having a cup of coffee, and left the office saying he would return to us at the beginning of the new year.

A few weeks later, a general assembly meeting for the company was scheduled. The partners arrived in London to attend the meeting, most of them being Kuwaiti. I asked the company’s accountant, a Jew named Philip, to prepare the annual budget and other reports and place them on my desk for review after I returned from lunch. It was nearly 5:00 PM when I was shocked to discover a grave error in the company’s budget: it stated that the capital of Company “C” was two and a half million pounds, not three million.

I immediately, without hesitation, called the accountant, but he did not answer. I then called his wife and asked to speak with him regarding an urgent matter. She explained that Steve (Philip) was a devout Jew and that touching a phone was forbidden upon the onset of the Sabbath, which begins at sunset on Friday. I explained the problem to her and asked her to speak with him and bring me an answer. Half an hour later, his wife called back and briefly explained each partner’s share, confirming that the company’s capital was one and a half million pounds, not three million.

I realized my grave mistake, which could have implicated me with the tax inspector. In an attempt to project seriousness and respectability for the company’s operations, I had claimed—likely unintentionally—to the building tenant, the VAT inspector, and finally the tax inspector—that we were serious investors. I repeatedly mentioned the figure “three million” to influence them, and it appears I even came to believe my own lie. I could have found myself in a precarious situation had any of the inspectors requested to inspect the company’s records. Perhaps our advisor found himself in a similar position.

He has bestowed upon himself, often with good intentions, a title that, while judicial in nature, is frequently employed to create a favorable impression on his audience. Through the repetition of his assertions, he has come to believe his own words, just as the claim of “three million” was accepted as truth forty years ago. Oh, dear counselor (!!), he who equates himself with you has not acted unjustly. Ahmad Al-Sarraf