George Abaraonye has declared he remains president-elect of the Oxford Union despite losing a no-confidence vote, claiming the ballot process was fundamentally flawed and “compromised from the moment” new regulations were introduced.
The 20-year-old politics, philosophy and economics student issued a defiant statement insisting the result cannot stand due to what he characterises as serious procedural failures and potential tampering with proxy votes.
His refusal to accept the outcome plunges Britain’s most prestigious debating society deeper into crisis, with the student at the centre of the Charlie Kirk shooting celebration scandal now refusing to step aside.
“Proxy Votes May Have Been Tampered With”
Abaraonye’s statement raises explosive allegations about the handling of proxy ballots during the no-confidence process.
He claims that Donovan Lock, who ran the election as extraordinary returning officer, “shared around the email account collecting proxy votes, including to personnel who campaigned to have George ousted, who had unsupervised access”.
The statement asks: “We do not know if or how many proxy votes have been tampered with.”
This allegation suggests that individuals actively campaigning for Abaraonye’s removal had access to systems that could theoretically allow them to interfere with votes cast by members unable to attend in person.
If substantiated, such claims would indeed raise serious questions about the integrity of the ballot.
Denies Representatives Were Intimidating
The suspended president-elect flatly rejects suggestions that his campaign representatives engaged in behaviour that led to the count being halted.
“We equivocally deny that any representative appointed by George engaged in intimidating or disruptive behaviour,” his statement declares.
This directly contradicts the official notice issued after the count was suspended, which claimed Lock had faced “obstruction, intimidation, and unwarranted hostility” from representatives.
Abaraonye instead argues the suspension occurred because Lock himself concluded “no result is possible” due to procedural problems with proxy vote verification.
“Still President-Elect” Despite Vote
Perhaps most controversially, Abaraonye’s statement baldly asserts: “George is and remains the president-elect.”
He claims to have “the support of well in excess of a majority of students at Oxford, who voted to have a safe election and resist attempts to subvert democracy”.
This framing positions his refusal to accept the result not as defiance but as defending democratic principles against a corrupted process.
The statement invokes Oxford Union Rule 47(h)(v), which allegedly suspends any result until disciplinary and appeals committees have resolved complaints.
Claims Returning Officer’s Statement is “False”
In particularly strong language, Abaraonye directly accuses Lock of lying about why the count was suspended.
The notice posted by ERO Donovan Lock on Monday, October 20, is false,” he told GB News.
According to Abaraonye’s version of events, Lock suspended the count at 6am Monday after recognising that proxy vote verification was “leading to a breach in the secrecy of ballots”.
He claims Lock himself stated that “further conduct of the poll and commencement of the count is untenable. No result is possible.”
Abaraonye says this can be verified by official audio recordings of the proceedings.
“Disappointing” Official Statement Harms Representatives
The embattled student goes further, suggesting Lock’s subsequent statement misrepresented what actually occurred and endangered the representatives present.
“This not only harms the Society’s interests, and undermines the legitimacy of the count, but has also undermined the safety of the representatives, whom he himself thanked for being respectful, understanding, and cordial,” Abaraonye stated.
The accusation that Lock initially thanked representatives for their conduct before later accusing them of intimidation would, if true, represent a significant contradiction.
“Knows to be Wrong and Unsafe”
Abaraonye concluded by attacking Lock’s decision to resume the count after initially suspending it.
“The ERO in subsequently resuming the count, is taking a course of action that he knows to be wrong and unsafe. I remain committed to a fair democratic process.”
This frames Lock’s attempt to complete the ballot as itself undermining democracy rather than serving it.
Background: Charlie Kirk Shooting Comments
The no-confidence vote stems from Abaraonye’s response to the fatal shooting of Conservative activist Charlie Kirk in September.
Kirk, a prominent Trump ally and Turning Point USA co-founder, was killed at a Utah Valley University event.
Leaked WhatsApp messages showed Abaraonye writing “Charlie Kirk got shot, let’s f**king go” and “Charlie Kirk got shot loool” – celebratory responses that sparked outrage.
The Oxford Union condemned the remarks and forwarded complaints for disciplinary proceedings.
Kirk Allies Threatened Boycott
Former colleagues of the murdered activist vowed to boycott the Oxford Union entirely if Abaraonye wasn’t removed from his position.
They argued that allowing someone who celebrated Kirk’s assassination to lead the society would represent “choosing ideology over integrity”.
The pressure from prominent American conservative figures added international dimension to what might otherwise have been an internal Oxford dispute.
Union Rules Invoked
Abaraonye’s statement extensively cites Oxford Union regulations to support his claim that he remains president-elect despite the vote.
Whether these procedural arguments will prevail depends on how the society’s disciplinary machinery interprets events.
The complexity of the rules creates space for Abaraonye to continue contesting the outcome rather than accepting defeat.
What Happens Next?
The Oxford Union now faces an extraordinary situation where its president-elect refuses to acknowledge a no-confidence vote that reportedly went heavily against him.
The matter appears headed to disciplinary committees and potentially appeals processes that could drag on for weeks or months.
Meanwhile, the society’s reputation suffers further damage, with the spectacle of procedural warfare replacing the intellectual debate it’s supposed to champion.
Questions of Legitimacy
Whether Abaraonye’s procedural objections have merit or represent desperate attempts to cling to a position he’s clearly lost will ultimately be determined by the Oxford Union’s internal processes.
His claims about proxy vote security and returning officer conduct are serious if true, but conveniently emerge only after he lost the ballot.
The assertion that he retains majority student support despite losing a vote specifically designed to test that proposition stretches credibility.
Institutional Crisis
For the Oxford Union, this saga represents a profound institutional crisis that threatens to permanently tarnish its reputation.
Founded in 1823, the society has hosted everyone from Winston Churchill to Malcolm X, priding itself on civilised debate and democratic processes.
That legacy now looks fragile as procedural warfare, accusations of fraud, and refusal to accept democratic outcomes dominate proceedings.
Whether the disciplinary committees can restore order and legitimacy remains to be seen, but the damage to the Oxford Union’s standing may already be irreparable.
Follow for more updates on Britannia Daily
