Nicola Sturgeon is today under renewed pressure over a botched investigation into harassment claims against Alex Salmond after suggestions Scottish Government lawyers may have misled the country’s highest civil court.

Questions are continuing to be asked about the First Minister’s version of events after it emerged her Government’s lawyers told the Court of Session she was informed of the harassment claims about her predecessor on April 2, 2018.

This is despite claims a meeting took place four days before at which the matter may have been discussed.

The warnings to the First Minister came as today Peter Murrell, her husband and chief executive of the SNP, is due to appear again before the Scottish parliamentary committee examining the handling of complaints against Mr Salmond.

Mr Murrell is set to be quizzed over text and WhatsApp messages about the former FM, which he previously said under oath did not exist.

The party boss twice failed to appear before the inquiry after being recalled to clear up contradictory evidence he gave in December.

Mr Salmond is not expected to give evidence himself as the inquiry is refusing to publish his dossier of allegations that claim Ms Sturgeon misled the Scottish Parliament and broke the ministerial code – an allegation she forcefully denies.

Rather, her predecessor is now expected to give a press conference this week before the FM is due to give her version of events to the committee next Tuesday.

One source close to the inquiry told The Herald: “Alex is going to get his story out one way or another.”

It has emerged that a key element of what Ms Sturgeon knew and when about the Salmond allegations formed part of the presentation made by Scottish Government lawyers to the Court of Session during the judicial review in 2018/19.

The First Minister’s contention that she first knew of the complaints about Mr Salmond on April 2, 2018, was said to have formed part of the case pleadings, the formal written submissions to the court by both sides.

Referring to Ms Sturgeon as “the interested party”, the pleadings stated how “she first became aware of the existence of an investigation into the petitioner’s (Mr Salmond) conduct in April, 2018, when the petitioner made her so aware.”

The FM admitted she had forgotten about a meeting four days earlier with Geoff Aberdein, Mr Salmond’s former chief of staff, during which allegations may have been addressed.

Mr Salmond claimed Mr Aberdein had explained the background to Ms Sturgeon on March 29, 2018, and, crucially, she knew that the April meeting was government business rather than an SNP party matter.

The FM has confirmed that no records were made of either of the meetings as they were not official business.

Importantly, while SNP party business does not require meetings to be recorded, the Scottish ministerial code says government affairs do.

But in his submission, Mr Salmond said: “The repeated representation to the Parliament of the meeting on April 2, 2018, as being a ‘party’ meeting because it proceeded in ignorance of the complaints is false and manifestly untrue.”

The Herald: Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond out on the campaign trail in 2015.Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond out on the campaign trail in 2015.

However, a spokesman for the FM has denied she is guilty of wrongdoing and has accused her predecessor of “seeking to malign the reputation of the First Minister” and of “spinning false conspiracy theories”.

Douglas Ross, the Scottish Conservative leader, said: “Any suggestion the Scottish Government misled our highest civil court must be treated with the utmost seriousness. The FM and civil servants both gave the same version of events, which we now know was wrong.

“Alex Salmond then won the judicial review, costing the Scottish taxpayer more than £500,000. Pressing questions remain over the handling of the Salmond case at multiple levels... Nicola Sturgeon must answer them.”

Scottish Labour’s Jackie Baillie, who sits on the Holyrood committee probing the Government’s handling of complaints against Mr Salmond, told Sky News: “Anything less than the whole truth told to the highest court in the land is a huge issue for the FM. This reinforces why our committee wants, and the public deserves, full and frank answers from her.”

Mr Salmond’s allegations have also been sent to James Hamilton, QC, who is conducting a parallel investigation into whether Ms Sturgeon breached the ministerial code; it has been leaked to several media outlets.

The Holyrood committee is probing the Scottish Government’s botched handling of two harassment complaints against Mr Salmond in 2018.

A judicial review found the investigation was unlawful and “tainted by apparent bias”. The former FM was consequently awarded more than £500,000 of taxpayers’ money to cover legal costs.

In March last year, Mr Salmond was acquitted of 13 charges of sexual assault, including attempted rape, at the High Court in Edinburgh.

In his dossier, the ex-FM accused Ms Sturgeon of making “simply untrue” and “untenable” claims about their meetings in 2018.

He claims the Scottish Parliament has been “repeatedly misled” about their meeting on April 2, 2018, when the FM claimed she first found out about the complaints made against him.

This would be a breach of the ministerial code, regarded as a resignation matter. Mr Salmond had been eagerly expected to give sworn testimony to the inquiry tomorrow but sources close to the 66-year-old have suggested this will not now happen because the committee is refusing to publish a dossier outlining his claims.

An indignant Mr Salmond described the decision not to publish as “extraordinary” and “farcical”.

However, it was suggested that over the weekend Mr Salmond was in talks with his legal advisers over drafting a letter to the committee before it meets at 9am today, making clear he would be willing to give evidence if some sort of last-minute compromise could be found.

Yet the committee has suggested that to release Mr Salmond’s evidence would be in breach of legal obligations.

Non-publication means the claims cannot be considered in the inquiry’s final report nor can he make reference to it when testifying before MSPs.

The Crown Office has warned the former SNP leader that if he were to present information in his dossier or make it public in any way, he could face criminal charges for contempt of court.

A spokesman for the Scottish Parliament said: “The committee has always been clear that the parliament cannot publish any information which does not comply with the legal obligations placed upon it.”

Yet Alex Cole-Hamilton, a Liberal Democrat member of the committee, said its inquiry was now “in crisis”.

“Not hearing from one of the principal witnesses, who was the subject of the government investigation, will seriously undermine the credibility and completeness of our work.”

Yesterday, Alex Neil, the veteran SNP MSP referred to a “lot of inexplicable happenings that raised questions about why the Scottish Government and then the Crown Office did what they did”.