Unite union sues elected executive member to shield Graham’s husband

As Skwawkbox exclusively reported in January 2026, the Unite union has been splurging money on court cases against three anonymous X accounts. They have taken legal action against X to obtain the names behind the accounts.

All, apparently, to protect the husband of General Secretary Sharon Graham, Jack Clarke. The inclusion of the union as a claimant almost certainly means  Unite is footing the bill. But now the situation has grown even murkier, with the revelation that this expense is being used to target one of its elected executive members — an opponent of Graham.

Complaints pile-up

Jack Clarke was promoted shortly after Graham took over the union in 2021, overseeing the newly-created ‘Bargaining and Disputes Unit (BDSU). Union insiders point out that Unite’s approval procedures for the promotion had not been followed.

Before his promotion under his wife’s leadership, Clarke had been on a final warning from Unite for bullying, misogyny and threats toward subordinates.

Workers in his new unit have also been striking over allegations of bullying and threats against them, too.

Allegations of abuse

In 2018, before Graham became Unite general secretary, she asked colleagues to destroy evidence of bullying and misogyny gathered by staff working under him in his previous role. In December 2024, Graham’s lawyers admitted that, following her take-over, the union destroyed the evidence.

During Graham’s tenure as general secretary of Unite, she has been constantly surrounded by allegations of abuse and anti-union behaviour. This includes her conduct in response to staff complaints about her husband and his allies.

BDSU staff have been in dispute with the union and Clarke over alleged bullying by Clarke and his cronies. These are not the first allegations against Clarke Staff have also accused Graham and her management team of employing intimidation, suspension and anti-union tactics against the staff in the dispute, outraging Unite’s National Industrial Sector Committee (NISC) for the print and graphics sector and the leaders of two unions representing Unite staff and officers.

Yet more allegations

So bad has this alleged conduct been that more than 90% of Unite staff working at the union’s Holborn HQ voted for strike action. Three – some say four – of the five women who worked in Clarke’s department since Graham formed it and put him in charge of it have left, with union sources saying that they also alleged bullying and abuse. The Unite union staff branch unanimously condemned Unite’s abuse of its staff. The influential Officers National Committee (ONC) accused Graham of using Murdoch-style anti-union tactics against workers and officers unionising and taking collective action.

Regarding the executive council, Graham’s allies used expensive lawyers and legal tactics to block the removal of the chair. He’s perceived to be a Graham factionalist whose handling of key issues cost him the confidence of ‘exec’ members. This tactic, repeatedly used, has been at a huge cost to union members.

Pharmacal revelations

The ‘Caseboard’ legal site lists details of ‘Unite the Union and another v content posted…’. This case originally listed ‘Persons Unknown’ associated with three accounts on the X social media platform:

The union also launched a ‘Norwich Pharmacal‘ suit against X. They seeking details of who runs the three targeted accounts.

And it seems the Norwich Pharmacal action disclosed at least one of the names. The updated Caseboard page for the defamation action now lists only two X accounts. The third defendant is named as “Rafik Moosa Mohammed”:

Rafik Moosa Mohammed, known more commonly as Raffiq Moosa to Unite members, is a Leicester councillor. He is an elected member of Unite’s ruling executive (EC). Initially a Graham supporter, Moosa evidently grew rapidly disillusioned with her conduct.

In 2025, as EC and union members demanded to know why Graham was not releasing Unite’s accounts. This came amid reports of membership losses and the squandering of the union’s strike fund. Moosa tried to obtain Unite’s accounts through a statutory application. The union withheld information unlawfully, as the statutory Certification Officer ruled in June 2025. Moosa is now running for re-election to the EC as part of the ‘Unite Alliance’ group. They oppose what they see as Graham’s conduct, cronyism, and betrayal of the movement.

The available paperwork on Caseboard does not mention which comments Moosa made that were allegedly defamatory. Nor does it answer why the union is spending members’ money for Sharon Graham’s husband rather than letting him pay for his own legal action.

This question is particularly important when Clarke appears to be claiming to have been defame. Meanwhile, Unite has said it is suing for “breach of confidence”.

And even more so when Unite has refused to say why it is throwing members’ money at legal action against barely-followed accounts but ignoring defamatory comments by a much bigger one, when its excuse for the Clarke action is that it “makes no apology for ensuring that lies are not told about the union”.

The lawsuit raises an interesting scenario. In 2026, elections will take place for the EC, as well as for Graham’s position as general secretary later in the year. Early indications are that the EC elections are not going in her favour. This may explain why Unite members accuse Graham’s coterie of squandering union resources to campaign for her slate of acolytes.

This may explain why Unite members accuse Graham’s coterie of squandering union resources to ‘callbank’ for her slate of acolytes.

If the EC elections go against her, will the union continue funding her husband’s legal action? And will it impact on her prospects of clinging onto her job despite outrage among members, staff and branches?

Featured image via the Canary