Ian Foxley Fights A Whistleblower’s War

The Whistleblower’s War: One Man's Fight Against Britain's Secret Saudi Arms Deals

Ian Foxley, a retired lieutenant colonel, stumbled upon a deeply rooted system of corruption sanctioned at the upper echelons of government. His decision to report his findings ignited a fourteen-year battle for the truth. This fight would cost him his career, his financial stability, and his peace of mind. It would also expose the murky dealings between the British state and its Saudi allies. Foxley’s journey reveals the extraordinary personal price of integrity. It calls into question the UK’s commitment to its own anti-corruption laws when vast sums of money and strategic alliances are at stake. This is a story of personal courage against institutional hypocrisy.

A Fateful Job Advert

During May of 2010, an advert in the Sunday Times caught Ian Foxley’s eye. A defence company sought a manager for the Sangcom programme, a British military project within Saudi Arabia. Sangcom began in 1978 with a value of £150 million. It had since expanded into a £2 billion enterprise. The programme supplied the national guard of Saudi Arabia with advanced military communications. This included a range of equipment from secure radios to fiber-optic cables, all sourced from British industry. The role seemed a perfect match for Foxley, a former Royal Corps of Signals lieutenant colonel. He had the right experience and knew former colleagues working on the project who spoke highly of it.

Image Credit - Centre for European Reform

Riyadh's Gilded Cage

When he arrived in Riyadh in July 2010, Foxley settled into the compound named Arizona. This was a typical Western enclave within Saudi Arabia, a self-contained community behind high, barbed-wire-topped concrete walls. It offered shops, restaurants, and even a golf course with nine holes. Armed guards patrolled its checkpoints. Foxley later termed it a “luxurious penitentiary.” He found himself adjusting to the strange subculture of unauthorized home brewing, a common pastime for expatriates in nations that prohibit alcohol. Online sellers who specialize in this market even catered to this market, selling "bakery kits" to Westerners moving to the region. While life in the compound was comfortable, adjusting to the new work environment proved far more difficult.

Whispers of Corruption

The leadership at his new employer, GPT Special Project Management, was sometimes opaque and eccentric. His managing director, Jeff Cook, gave him a stark warning about an accountant named Michael Paterson, calling him a “madman” and telling Foxley to avoid him. Later, a colleague made a casual joke. He mentioned a general from Saudi Arabia would approve any proposal from GPT due to a mechanism known as "bought in services." Foxley was unfamiliar with the phrase. His inquiries were met with elusive replies regarding 'items we procure.' Initially, Foxley wrote these off as cultural oddities. But soon, they started to seem like signs of something more sinister at play within the company.

An Unsettling Ultimatum

By November 2010, the atmosphere had soured considerably. Jeff Cook started finding fault with Foxley's work and making accusations about him failing to meet his targets. While GPT would later portray this as a genuine performance issue, Foxley felt it was a reaction to his persistent questions. His inquiries regarding 'bought in services' were evidently making someone nervous. The tension grew over several weeks. It finally peaked in a confrontation that December. Cook, in his 22nd-floor office, gave Foxley a blunt choice: resign from his position or face dismissal. The sudden ultimatum confirmed Foxley's suspicion that a profound issue existed inside the Sangcom programme.

A Desperate Plea

The day after the ultimatum, a shaken Ian Foxley sought out Brigadier David Hargreaves. Hargreaves was the Ministry of Defence’s senior officer in Riyadh, leading the official Sangcom team. Foxley informed the brigadier that he believed there was a serious problem within the programme and that corruption was likely. In Foxley's version of events, Hargreaves requested he produce proof of his allegations. Hargreaves’ memory of the meeting, later recounted in court, was different. He claimed the conversation never went beyond Foxley asking for guidance regarding how to handle the resign-or-be-fired demand from Cook. Whatever the specifics of the exchange, Foxley left feeling he needed concrete evidence to be taken seriously.

The Accountant’s Confession

Driving home, Foxley’s mind turned to the accountant Michael Paterson, whom he had been warned to avoid. He decided to take a risk and called Paterson’s apartment. A short while later, Paterson sat at Foxley's dining table and laid bare a sprawling criminal enterprise. He asked Foxley if he had knowledge of the Cayman Islands situation. Over the next 90 minutes, Paterson detailed a long-running bribery scheme implicating GPT. He explained the mysterious term 'bought in services' represented a 16% fee added to invoices. The money was funnelled to a Cayman Islands shell company, Simec, before being paid out as bribes to key Saudi officials to keep the contracts flowing.

A History of Kickbacks

Bribery has for many years been fundamental to the global arms business. Deals worth billions are shrouded in secrecy on the grounds of national security. The most common method involves a kickback or commission given to an intermediary. This intermediary retains a share before distributing the majority of the funds to the official who holds the power to award the contract. The use of intermediaries is crucial. They provide a layer of deniability, often disguised as professionals providing valid services. Should the corrupt deal ever be uncovered, the company is able to claim ignorance of the middleman's illegal activities. The true challenge is not making the illicit payments, but concealing them from auditors and regulators.

The Cayman Islands Connection

The Sangcom deal used a simple but effective cipher to hide its corrupt payments: the term "bought in services." GPT, the MoD’s contractor, added a flat 16% fee under this label to all its invoices for the Saudi government. These funds were then transferred to Simec, a company registered in the Cayman Islands. In official records, Simec was providing unspecified 'services' in exchange for these substantial payments. Simec, in truth, delivered no actual services. It was merely a vehicle to channel the bribes to their ultimate recipients, ensuring the lucrative Sangcom communications contract remained in British hands. This system had operated for years, a closely guarded secret.

A Predecessor's Warning

A stocky Scotsman, Michael Paterson, had joined GPT's finance team in 2003. He soon became aware of the payments for 'bought in services' but initially accepted them as an element of the business he was not responsible for. However, following a restructuring of the company in 2007, he grew deeply uncomfortable approving the enormous sums. He began asking difficult questions. In November 2007, he formally objected via email. His superiors pressured him to authorize the payments, but Paterson refused, secretly recording a call where he labelled the scheme as bribery. His defiance led to him being relieved of his responsibilities and put on a period of paid leave, his career effectively destroyed.

 Image Credit - Leigh Day

A Soldier’s Code

For Ian Foxley, integrity was not just a word; it was a core principle forged through a lifetime of military service. He hailed from a family with a distinguished military history and dreamed of being a soldier from childhood. After graduating from Sandhurst, he embarked on a distinguished career in the Royal Signals, serving across the globe from Germany to Bosnia. His colleagues knew him as direct and cheerful, but also as a man with an unbending moral compass. He was known for his stubborn, almost pugnacious, pursuit of what he believed was right. This rigid moral compass would shortly be tested like never before.

The Father's Shadow

Foxley’s intense dedication to principled conduct was also shaped by a devastating family trauma. In 1989, Gordon Foxley, his father and a high-ranking MoD official, was arrested for taking over £1.3 million in bribes. Gordon had been the chief of procuring ammunition and had steered contracts toward suppliers in Europe, leading to mass job losses in Blackburn. The scandal destroyed his family. A jail sentence was given to Gordon, his pension was seized, and the home of the family was sold. The disgrace permanently damaged Ian Foxley's own army career prospects, with senior officers noting it was "premature to have another Foxley" near procurement. This painful history intensified Foxley's horror of corruption.

The Point of No Return

Armed with Paterson's story, Foxley knew he was unable to be complicit. At 5 a.m. the next day, he drove to the GPT office. He used his rank to gain access to Paterson's email archives from the IT department. There, he found the dossier Paterson had mentioned—a trove of emails, contracts, and spreadsheets detailing the payment scheme. Cook's signature was on many of the documents. Foxley meticulously forwarded the files, individually, to his contact on the Riyadh-based Sangcom team from the MoD. He included a note requesting an immediate discussion. He then waited for the inevitable and urgent response.

Betrayal in Whitehall

The response came after a six-hour wait, but the call was not from the MoD. It was Jeff Cook, summoning him to his office. Waiting with Cook was GPT's head of HR, a Saudi princess and the king's niece. Cook accused Foxley of stealing and made threats of arrest and imprisonment in Riyadh. As the princess left the room on her mobile, Foxley realised the extreme danger he was in. He later learned that his MoD contact had passed the dossier to Brigadier Hargreaves, who had then reached out to Whitehall's MoD headquarters for instructions. Instead of alerting the police, Whitehall instructed Hargreaves to give the evidence straight back to GPT.

Escape from the Kingdom

Realising the gravity of the situation, Foxley fled the office. He called his MoD contact, who instructed him to go to the MoD compound without delay. His contacts there agreed he had to leave Saudi Arabia at once. The risk of being arrested by the Saudi royal family was too great a risk for the MoD to handle. Foxley returned to his apartment, packed a single bag, and had a friend drive him to the airport. He told passport control that urgent business called him to London. Shortly after 1 a.m. on 8 December 2010, the aircraft departed, with Foxley as a passenger, a fugitive from a system he had tried to hold to account.

An Unlikely Ally

Back within the UK, Foxley spent weeks processing the betrayal. He had naively assumed the government in Britain would act on his information. After all, he had uncovered corruption within a government-to-government contract. He gave the MoD an ultimatum: launch an investigation or he would go directly to the Serious Fraud Office (SFO). The MoD, seemingly taking the threat seriously, referred the matter to the SFO in 2012. A veteran of the agency, Paul Brinkworth, was tasked with the investigation. Brinkworth quickly recognised Foxley as a compelling and credible witness, driven by a deep-seated intolerance for corruption rooted in his family's past.

The Al-Yamamah Ghost

The SFO faced a daunting task. The investigation was complex, spanning decades and involving a powerful and sensitive ally. The SFO had been compelled, six years before, to shut down its investigation into the al-Yamamah arms deal. This was a colossal £43 billion contract for BAE Systems to provide the Saudis with fighter jets. That deal was also mired in secret commissions. When a key Saudi prince faced investigation, he threatened to withdraw intelligence cooperation. The Blair government buckled, and the investigation was halted, leading to widespread condemnation and claims of political interference.

Years in the Wilderness

While the investigation by the SFO moved forward slowly, Ian Foxley's life fell apart. Once word spread of his role as a whistleblower, his previously abundant work in defence contracting evaporated. The irony was bitter. Decades earlier, his father's corruption had hindered his career. Now, his own integrity was punishing him. His wife Emma, to ensure they could manage financially, returned to teaching full-time. Friends observed him becoming withdrawn and introverted, a shadow of his former self. The financial and psychological harm was immense and irreparable. He was isolated, a victim of the very system he had sworn to serve.

 Image Credit - DPG

The Wheels of Justice

During July of 2014, the SFO finally acted. Synchronized raids at dawn led to the arrests of important individuals at GPT and Simec, Jeff Cook among them. In a statement he had prepared, Cook denied wrongdoing, arguing he simply followed procedures approved by both the UK MoD and the Saudi king. However, the decision for the case to go to trial was delayed for years, requiring the attorney general's approval, which was finally granted in 2020. For Foxley, the long wait was torturous. He fired off angry letters to prosecutors, frustrated by the silence and the devastating secondary effects the delay was having on his family.

A Shocking Revelation in Court

In 2021, the case finally began to move. In a stunning development, corruption charges were admitted by GPT Special Project Management. The company, a subsidiary of Airbus, was ordered to pay a total of £30.3 million in fines, confiscation, and costs. During the sentencing, the judge made a landmark finding. He stated that the government in Britain was aware of the corrupt payment scheme since the 1970s. It was at this point Foxley finally understood the true depth of the conspiracy. He realized the government hadn't only betrayed him; it was also a participant in the corruption from the very beginning.

A Trial Collapses

The prosecution of the individuals, Jeff Cook and the accountant from Simec, John Mason, began in 2022. The key witness was Foxley, who described finding the dossier and his sudden departure. However, after two months, the proceedings came to a halt. It emerged that key evidence was not disclosed by the MoD to the defence, a catastrophic failure that sabotaged the case. A retrial was ordered. The delay added another layer of frustration and highlighted the institutional obstacles that appeared to shield the secrets of the deal for Sangcom. The non-profit Spotlight on Corruption later called for a full inquiry.

The Defence of State Sanction

In October 2023, a second trial commenced. This time, the defence had a clear and astonishing strategy. The lawyers for Cook and Mason did not dispute that payments had been made. Instead, they argued that the payments were not a secret plot by rogue employees. They contended that the British government's knowledge and authorization covered the entire operation. The payments, they claimed, were a necessary, state-sanctioned part of dealings with the Saudi kingdom to secure the vital contracts. Their clients were merely cogs in a machine built and operated by Whitehall itself.

The Verdict and a Lesser Crime

In March 2024, after almost forty hours of deliberation, the acquittal of both John Mason and Jeff Cook occurred. Their defence—that the scheme's authorization came from the British government—had succeeded. However, the jury convicted Cook on a separate, lesser charge of misconduct in a public office. This related to kickbacks, including vehicles and cash, he had taken during his time as a civil servant for the MoD, before he joined GPT. Foxley watched from the gallery as his former superior was sentenced to a prison sentence of 30 months for this "grubby" crime.

The Uncomfortable Silence

Despite the explosive revelations in court, the official response was muted. Parliament's defence committee showed no interest in investigating the affair. The MoD issued a brief statement applauding Cook's conviction for misconduct but did not comment on the government's decades-long involvement in the bribery scheme. When asked for comment, a spokesperson merely said that the MoD maintains a "zero-tolerance approach to misconduct." For a case that exposed high-level corruption and resulted in £28 million in fines for the company involved, the silence from the establishment was deafening.

Britain's Saudi Appetite

The Sangcom affair has done nothing to dampen the UK's enthusiasm for its partnership with the Saudi kingdom. In February 2024, the two nations agreed to progress work on a new strategic defence partnership to develop advanced capabilities, including air defence systems and precision-guided missiles. Later that year, in December, Prime Minister Keir Starmer visited Riyadh for the purpose of promoting stronger ties, reaffirming a commitment to increase bilateral trade to £30 billion by 2030. A new defence partnership was agreed upon, designed to last for generations. The strategic alliance, it seems, is too important to be derailed by revelations of state-sanctioned bribery.

A Final Reckoning

The Ministry of Defence is now being sued by Ian Foxley, along with the Department for Business and Trade, and GPT, over the harm to his professional life and livelihood because he blew the whistle. His legal claim seeks justice for what is described by him as his "betrayal as a confidential whistleblower." His lawyers argue that he suffered immense financial and psychological harm due to an unethical conspiracy to silence him. Foxley states the lawsuit is about holding the MoD to account for its rank hypocrisy: relentlessly prosecuting his father for corruption while simultaneously facilitating it on a massive scale for decades. A ruling will be made on the case by a court in early 2026.