Former BP chairman Albert Manifold has hit at the board of the oil and gas giant, saying no one raised any issues about his conduct before he was abruptly sacked two days ago. In a statement on Thursday morning, Manifold rejected what he described as “lies” spread about him but said he accepted he was no longer to be chairman and director of BP. “What I do not accept is that lies can be told about me, nor that anyone should be allowed to hide behind anonymity when commenting on my time at BP,” he said. Manifold, who hails from Dublin, was previously the long-serving chief executive of CRH. He said he was removed “without warning and without explanation as BP chairman this week. He has now amplified concerns about the manner of his sacking but stopped short of suggesting he might take legal action against BP and wished the new chief executive Meg O’Neill well. [ Who is Albert Manifold and why has he been removed as chairman of BP?Opens in new window ]BP ousted Manifold on Tuesday saying the move “follows serious concerns raised to the board related to important governance standards, oversight and conduct”. The company said the board decision was unanimous, with various media reports suggesting Manifold had been removed because of “bullying” and “overbearing” behaviour. “I dispute entirely this characterisation of my conduct,” Manifold said on Thursday, adding that he sought to accelerate cost-cutting and had no time for private jets, company limousines or a big office. “I had no interest in having a dedicated chauffeur-driven limousine at my beck and call on the occasions that I was in London. I, like most people, walked, took taxis, trains, etc.“I had no interest in taking private aviation nor in availing myself of corporate tickets for sports events. I made my own coffee, bought my lunch in the local cafe.. I sat in a small office, eschewing the grand corner-office privilege of previous chairmen. I did these things because I wanted to set an example.”Manifold said his goals were “not always shared” by others in the company, adding that he found the company “lacked strategic cohesion and direction” when he arrived last year. “I also believe it lacked clarity on messaging, urgency of delivery, and I believe those issues could have impacted shareholders’ interests,” he said. “From my very first day, I set out to address these matters and ensure that shareholder interests continued to be front and centre of everything that BP did. Throughout my professional career I have been a passionate advocate of shareholders’ rights and have had a relentless focus on simply making businesses better. “I continued to do this during my time at BP, however, it felt to me that my priorities were not always shared by everyone.”He rejected as “nonsense” claims he tried to exercise the role of executive chairman. “I have been to BP’s head office in London on approximately 13 days in 2026. I am a part-time non-executive with many other commitments,” he said.“Is it possible that in my determination to drive change on costs, performance, the balance sheet and shareholder communications, I pushed hard and challenged people directly? Yes, it is. “But there is a considerable distance between driving an organisation with urgency and the characterisation of my conduct that is now being put about.”