Afghan data breach: Why UK politicians sought to keep it a secret

RTÉ News​

7 days ago

As the US withdrew from Afghanistan in the summer of 2021, the Taliban swiftly returned to power.
Many Afghan citizens who had worked with international forces since 2001 feared retribution. They did whatever they could to get out.
Footage of people clinging to planes as they took off from Kabul airport, only to fall to their deaths moments later, showed the world just how desperate people were to get out.
Those who had worked with the British government in Afghanistan were able to apply for a scheme known as the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap).
Over 34,000 people were resettled in the UK as part of the scheme.
However, in February 2022, an email sent by an official in the Ministry of Defence led to devastating consequences.
The soldier who sent the email thought that it contained the names of just 150 people. In fact, it contained the names and details of nearly 19,000.
Included in the list were the details of over 100 British officials, including members of the special forces and MI6.
By August 2023, some of the names appeared on Facebook. The British government knew it had a major problem.
Superinjunction
Around the same time, a number of journalists started to hear that there had been a major data breach involving the 'Arap' scheme. Within days the Ministry of Defence asked the courts for an injunction.
However, there was concern that even the mention of an injunction could attract attention and ultimately unravel the tightly concealed breach. The judge therefore suggested that a superinjunction might be better.
This meant that not only could the story not be reported, but people could not even mention that the injunction existed. It was an unprecedented move.
What initially was supposed to be a four-month superinjunction lasted almost two years.
It would raise profound questions around the impact of such injunctions on democracy, freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
Afghanistan Response Route
A secret scheme, the Afghanistan Response Route, was also established to relocate Afghanis suspected of being in danger due to the data breach.
Altogether around 6,900 Afghanis will be relocated through the scheme by the time it closes.
Six months after Labour entered government, the new Defence Secretary, John Healey, commissioned an independent review.
Speaking in the House of Commons this week he told MPs that the review concluded that there was "little evidence of intent by the Taliban to conduct a campaign of retribution against former officials".
He added that "the wealth of data inherited from the former Government by the Taliban would already enable them to target individuals if they wish to do so which means".
It was therefore found that it was "highly unlikely" that this leak would be the reason the Taliban would act against an individual.
However, this risk couldn't be ruled out entirely.
After providing this report to the court, the judge ruled that he could lift the superinjunction at 12pm on Tuesday 16 July.
Calls for an inquiry
The controversy has raised uncomfortable questions for both the government and lead opposition party in the UK.
It is perhaps for that reason that the Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch chose not to raise the matter during Prime Ministers Questions this week, despite it being the dominant news story that day.
Instead, it was Liberal Democrats leader Ed Davey who called for a public inquiry into the controversy.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer also attempted to throw blame back towards the Conservatives, telling the chamber that the party opposite had "serious questions to answer".
However, the former Secretary of Defence, Ben Wallace, who was in office when the leak first happened, robustly defended his actions this week.
He told BBC radio that an injunction was sought to "protect those people who could have been or were exposed".
Grant Shapps, who replaced Ben Wallace shortly after the leak happened, also said that the superinjunction was the correct measure to take, explaining that his focus was to "protect those people who could have been or were exposed".
The lasting impact
Many have asked whether this superinjunction lasted too long or whether it was appropriate at all.
It was in place during an election year when issues around immigration and public spending were major topics of debate. And yet it had to remain a secret.
The Afghanistan Response Route is expected to eventually cost the British taxpayer £850 million. And as of May 2025, more than16,000 Afghan people had moved to the UK because of the data breach.
However, many people in positions of authority at the time will argue that they were dealing with a potentially devastating situation in real time, where people who had worked with the UK government risked being killed because of it.
They say that the injunction was an unprecedented but necessary measure to try to mitigate the damage.
The debate is set to continue, with the Commons Defence Committee committing to hold an inquiry into the matter.
A chance to shed light on a controversy which has evaded scrutiny for almost two years.