Passport cancelled: the Coalition government has stripped 16 people of their British citizenship. (Image: Shutterstock)
The government has secretly ramped up a controversial programme that strips people of their British citizenship on national security grounds – two of whom have been subsequently killed by US drone attacks.
An investigation by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism and published in the Independent has established that since 2010 the Home Secretary Theresa May has revoked the passports of 16 individuals many of whom are alleged to have had links to militant or terrorist groups.
Critics of the programme warn that it also allows ministers to ‘wash their hands’ of British nationals suspected of terrorism who could be subject to torture and illegal detention abroad.
They add that it also allows those stripped of their citizenship to be killed or ‘rendered’ without any onus on the British government to intervene.
At least five of those deprived of their UK nationality by the Coalition government were born in Britain, and one man had lived in the country for almost 50 years.
Those affected have their passports cancelled, and lose their right to enter the UK – making it very difficult to appeal the Home Secretary’s decision.
Last night the Liberal Democrat’s deputy leader Simon Hughes said he was writing to the Home Secretary to call for an urgent review into how the law was being implemented.
The leading human rights lawyer Gareth Peirce said the present situation ‘smacked of medieval exile, just as cruel and just as arbitrary’.
Ian Macdonald QC, president of the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association, described the citizenship orders as ‘sinister’.
‘They’re using executive powers and I think they’re using them quite wrongly,’ he said.
‘It’s not open government, it’s closed, and it needs to be exposed because in my view it’s a real overriding of open government and the rule of law.’
Laws were passed in 2002 enabling the Home Secretary to remove the citizenship of any dual nationals who had done something ‘seriously prejudicial’ to the UK, but the power had rarely been used before the current government.
The Bureau’s investigations have established the identities of all but four of the 21 British passport holders who have lost their citizenship, and their subsequent fates. Only two have successfully appealed – one of whom has since been extradited to the US.
Related story - Graphic detail: How the government used its powers of banishment
In many cases those involved cannot be named because of ongoing legal action.
It’s not open government, it’s closed, and it needs to be exposed because in my view it’s a real overriding of open government and the rule of law.
Ian Macdonald QC
The Bureau has also found evidence that government officials act when people are out of the country – on two occasions while on holiday - cancelling passports and revoking citizenships.
Those targeted include Bilal al-Berjawi, a British-Lebanese citizen who came to the UK as a baby and grew up in London, but left for Somalia in 2009 with his close friend British-born Mohamed Sakr, who also held Egyptian nationality.
Both had been the subject of extensive surveillance by British intelligence, with the security services concerned they were involved in terrorist activities.
Once in Somalia, the two reportedly became involved with al Shabaab, an Islamist militant group with links to al Qaeda. Berjawi was said to have risen to a senior position in the organisation, with Sakr his ‘right hand man’.
In 2010, Theresa May stripped both men of their British nationalities and they soon became targets in an ultimately lethal US manhunt.
In June 2011 Berjawi was wounded in the first known US drone strike in Somalia and last year he was killed by a drone strike – within hours of calling his wife in London to congratulate her on the birth of their first son.
Sakr, too, was killed in a US airstrike in February 2012, although his British origins have not been revealed until now.
Sakr’s former UK solicitor said there appeared to be a link between the Home Secretary removing citizenships, and subsequent US actions.
‘It appears that the process of deprivation of citizenship made it easier for the US to then designate Sakr as an enemy combatant, to whom the UK owes no responsibility whatsoever,’ Saghir Hussain told the Bureau.
Macdonald added that depriving people of their citizenship ‘means that the British government can completely wash their hands if the security services give information to the Americans who use their drones to track someone and kill them.’
Campaign group CagePrisoners is in touch with many families of those affected. Executive director Asim Qureshi said the Bureau’s findings were deeply troubling for Britons from an ethnic minority background.
‘We all feel just as British as everybody else, and yet just because our parents came from another country, we can be subjected to an arbitrary process where we are no longer members of this country any more,’ he said.
‘I think that’s extremely dangerous because it will speak to people’s fears about how they’re viewed by their own government, especially when they come from certain areas of the world.’
Related story: When being born British isn’t enough
Liberal Democrat Hughes said that while he accepted there were often real security concerns, he was worried that those who were innocent of Home Office charges against them and were trying to appeal risked finding themselves in a ‘political and constitutional limbo’.
‘There was clearly always a risk when the law was changed seven years ago that the executive could act to take a citizenship away in circumstances that were more frequent or more extensive than those envisaged by ministers at the time,’ he said.
‘I’m concerned at the growing number of people who appear to have lost their right to citizenship in recent years. I plan to write to the Home Secretary and the Home Affairs Select Committee to ask for their assessment of the situation, the policy both in general and in detail, and for a review of whether the act working as intended.’
Gareth Peirce said the present situation ‘smacked of medieval exile’.
‘British citizens are being banished from their own country, being stripped of a core part of their identity yet without a single word of explanation of why they have been singled out and dubbed a risk,’ she said.
Families are sometimes affected by the Home Secretary’s decisions. Parents may have to choose whether their British children remain in the UK, or join their father in exile abroad.
In a case known only as L1, a Sudanese-British man took his four British children on summer holiday to Sudan, along with his wife, who had limited leave to remain in the UK. Four days after his departure, Theresa May decided to strip him of his citizenship.
Appeals are heard at Siac, a semi-secret court held at the Royal Courts of Justice (Photo: Shutterstock)
With their father excluded from the UK and their mother’s lack of permanent right to remain, the order effectively blocks the children from growing up in Britain.At the time of the order the children were aged eight to 13 months.The judge, despite recognising their right to be brought up in Britain, ruled that the grounds on which their father’s citizenship was revoked ‘outweighed’ the rights of the children.
Mr Justice Mitting, sitting in the semi-secret Special Immigration Appeals Commission, said: ‘We accept that it is unlikely to be in the best interests of the Appellant’s children that he should be deprived of his British citizenship… They are British citizens, with a right of abode in the United Kingdom.
‘They are of an age when that right cannot, in practice, be enjoyed if both of their parents cannot return to the United Kingdom.’
Yet he added that Theresa May was ‘unlikely to have made that decision without substantial and plausible grounds’.
In another case, a man born in Newcastle in 1963 and three of his London-born sons all lost their citizenship two years ago while in Pakistan.
An expert witness told Siac, the semi-secretive court which hears deprivation appeals, that those in the family’s situation may be at risk from the country’s government agencies and militant groups. Yet Siac recently ruled that the UK ‘owed no obligation’ to those at risk of ‘any subsequent act of the Pakistani state or of non-state actors [militant groups] in Pakistan’.
The British government can completely wash their hands if the security services give information to the Americans who use their drones to track someone and kill them.
Ian Macdonald QC
The mother, herself a naturalised British citizen, now wants to return here in the interests of her youngest son, who has developmental needs. Although 15, he is said to be ‘dependent upon [his mother and father] for emotional and practical support’. His mother claimed he ‘has no hope of education in Pakistan’. But the mother has diabetes and mobility problems that mean she ‘does not feel able to return on her own, with or without [her son].’
Mr Justice Mitting ruled that the deprivation of citizenship of the family’s father had ‘undoubtedly had an impact on the private and family life of his wife and youngest son, both of whom remain British citizens’.
But he added that the father posed such a threat to national security that the ‘unavoidable incidental impact’ on his wife and youngest son was ‘justifiable’, and dismissed the appeal.
A Home Office spokeswoman said: ‘Citizenship is a privilege not a right. The Home Secretary has the power to remove citizenship from individuals where she considers it is conducive to the public good. An individual subject to deprivation can appeal to the courts.’
She added: ‘We don’t routinely comment on individual deprivation cases.’
Asked whether intelligence was provided to foreign governments, she said: ‘We don’t comment on intelligence issues. Drone strikes are a matter for the states concerned.’
A law unto herself: How the Home Secretary has the power to strip British citizenship
The Home Secretary has sole power to remove an individual’s British citizenship. The decision does not have to be referred through the courts.
From the moment the Home Secretary signs a deprivation of citizenship order, the individual ceases to be a British subject – their passport is cancelled, they lose the diplomatic protections Britain extends to its citizens, and they must apply for a visa to re-enter the country.
The Home Secretary can only deprive an individual of their citizenship if they are dual nationals. The power cannot be used if by removing British citizenship it renders an individual stateless.
The Home Secretary, Theresa May can use the power whenever she deems it ‘conducive to the public good’. She can act based on what she believes someone might do, rather than based on past acts.
The only way to challenge an order is through retrospective appeal. Where the deprivation is on national-security grounds, as in almost every known case, appeals go to the semi-secret Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Siac).
Siac hears sensitive, intelligence-based evidence in ‘closed’ proceedings – where an individual and their legal team cannot learn the detail of the evidence against them. Instead, a special advocate – a carefully vetted barrister – challenges the government’s account. But once they have seen the secret material they cannot speak with the defendant without the court’s permission, making cross-examination ‘pretty useless’, in the words of former special advocate Ian Macdonald.
Related article: The Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) explained
The government has long been able to remove the citizenship of those who acquired it in cases such as treason, but the power to do so to British-born individuals was introduced after 9/11 in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. This allowed the Home Secretary to strip the nationality of those who had ‘done anything seriously prejudicial’ to the country. At that point, no deprivation order had been issued since 1973.
Following the July 7 bombings, the law changed again, so citizenship could be stripped if it is deemed ‘conducive to the public good’. Conservative MPs called this a ‘watered-down test’ – but the Conservative-led coalition government has embraced the power, issuing over three times as many orders as under Labour.
Follow Chris Woods and Alice K Ross on Twitter.
** In February and March, support the Bureau’s Naming the Dead project, which aims to identify those killed in drone strikes. Click here to donate. **
Sign up for email alerts from the Bureau here.
February 28th, 2013 at 9:16 am (#)
Since 2010 the Home Secretary Theresa May has revoked the passports of 16 individuals many of whom are alleged to have had links to militant or terrorist groups.
GOOD! I hope your’e not expecting sympathy for these people? If they’re terrorists willing to murder, they should expect to pay the consequences!
February 28th, 2013 at 12:02 pm (#)
Sue I 100% agree with you! I’m just suprised the ruling elite have had the balls to do something sensible for once!
February 28th, 2013 at 12:58 pm (#)
A cuckoo does not become a thrush because it was hatched in a thrush’s nest.
February 28th, 2013 at 1:24 pm (#)
Sue,
This is a typical and frankly understandable reaction to persecution of people we don’t like very much. I hold dual UK/US nationality, here in the US the march of state abuse of power is a little more advanced, citizens (who are indeed a threat and likely guilty) can simply be killed without indictment or appearance in court.
Yet I cannot bring myself to cheer along with the “us vs them” crowd. When states wield this kind of power we are all at risk, the lack of concern for whom these powers are excercised against is almost counted on, its human nature. But, I beg you to see beyond who is targeted today with this kind of. lawlessness and think who might be targeted tomorrow. Give the government an inch…
If these people are a threat, of which I have little doubt, then indict and try. Burden of proof is becoming an easily dodgable tenent these days, accusations of threat or terrorism should not satisfy us.
February 28th, 2013 at 1:49 pm (#)
I would like to extradite all Britons that have participated as the military arm/paramilitary/militia of the British government in illegal wars. I’d like to imprison them first, but that would be giving them the right of reply to my actions.
February 28th, 2013 at 2:56 pm (#)
Most of these people are guilty of nothing more than terrorist rhetoric. Anwar al-Awlaki never committed an act of violence. He may have supported them with his words. If supporting acts of violence against people that have not committed crimes is a crime punishable by death, then why aren’t there a couple of Predator drones hovering over Sue’s house? If supporting acts of barbarism is a crime, then the entire US/UK alliance is culpable as our military activities have directly or indirectly caused the deaths of over 150,000 people in the Middle East (some of them war crimes like the execution of 10 children in 2006: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/01/wikileaks-us-troops-execu_n_945279.html).
And we wonder why they hate us.
February 28th, 2013 at 2:58 pm (#)
@Sue
Hmm…I think ‘alleged’ was the key word, was it not…
February 28th, 2013 at 5:59 pm (#)
Re my comment about cuckoos & thrushes.
I agree that such actions by governments are frightening, but it is only happening because of the treasonous idiots (including the present lot) who encouraged the cuckoos into our nest in the first place.
February 28th, 2013 at 6:18 pm (#)
Dave, much as I understand your point of view, I still don’t agree… People should stop whinging, it’s a tough world out there. There are some things that are just necessary, as unpleasant as they seem. You can’t afford to “play the whiteman” when a huge faction of savages is baying for blood.
Shona, tell you what, just take Blair. He made the decisions to declare war illegally. Everyone else is “just following orders”. Just like terrorists say Allah told them to do it.
[Edited for legal reasons]
March 1st, 2013 at 10:49 am (#)
Dave, Shona and Stoner, you all seem to be coming at this from the same angle; i.e. don’t let the goverment exercise any executive powers; Make sure they strictly follow due process in all cases. The problem is that this doesn’t work in all cases and results in a situation where nothing gets done to protect the victims (actual and potential). The terrorists deploy the vast resources of the overly sympathetic human rights legal lobby and spin out the process for so long that they are never removed – whilst at the same time despising the very same people and the system that is helping them. They can then remain to ferment terrorist plots and indoctrinate new terrorist recruits. Is that what you want? If you or one of your loved ones was killed or maimed in the next tube/bus/train/plane outrage would you feel the same way?
March 2nd, 2013 at 8:21 am (#)
Sue, the trouble with this line of thinking is that people who decide what is ‘conducive to the public good’ are not infallible. I believe the financial crisis, payouts to bankers, wars in the Middle East leave no doubt of that.
It is easy to dismiss people and cultures that seems alien to you (as seen from your use of the word ‘Allah’ as if God is exclusively Christian and Allah is exclusively Muslim), but in the same way some may decide you or people you like are a threat and penalize you without public court or presumption of innocence, e.g. because they were environmental activists (damaging business interests), experienced some problems (too old, too ill, liked alcohol or drugs too much), joined another church (national interests/dangerous sect), did not toe the government’s line or simply had a weird hair/dress style.
Today you applaud the government for cutting corners, but when tomorrow it is something against your interests someone else may applaud it for being ruthlessly efficient.
March 2nd, 2013 at 1:57 pm (#)
How many of those individuals born and raised in the UK who have had their citizenship stripped white?
How many New IRA terrorists have had their citizenship stripped?
Is it a black thing?
As for the cuckoos garbage talk, is the reference Australia, the Americas, New Zealand? There most definitely are plenty of cuckoos.
March 2nd, 2013 at 8:47 pm (#)
It seems comments are being deleted here.
In the end, all this citizenship stripping is a racist enterprise.
Remember when the IRA were letting off a bomb once a week? Remember when they targeted the government? Not one Northern Ireland republican lost his/citizenship.
My advise to every ethnic minority and mixed raced individual in the UK is to take great care because the racist running dogs have been unleashed and some of them work for the security services.
March 12th, 2013 at 12:12 am (#)
I have been sanctioned by the DWP for not having broadband in my home so it impacts on my job search, I have not had any money for a month now so i may be made into a terrorist as i am white British, born in Britain as were my forefathers yet i am being treated to starvation,name calling and soup kitchens, and being treated like i need a yellow star to be sown on my coat,can i now apply for asylum ? then this government will spend millions on me to be deported and yet my crime is to be out of work for just 3 months in the last 40 years.
Can the Home Secretary please remove my passport as i now feel i am not English or even British but something far less and yet to contemplate being a terrorist never ever can cross a well balanced mind yet when one has nothing to loose and being treated like a scum bag harms the mind of the many and yet it only takes a few and yet why am i typing this sat in this dank smelly hostel as my home is but a few miles away now repossessed and family moved away and being treated like a leper and forced to go begging bread and yet growing a beard commands attention and at least food