Latest news with #AfghanLeak
France 24
4 days ago
- Politics
- France 24
50 days for Putin: 'Much ado about nothing?', UK Data Breach scandal, Israel bombs Damascus
Europe 48:25 Issued on: 48:25 min From the show A panel of Praris-based journalists review the week's international news: stories that made the headlines and also those the viewers may have missed. Putin's 50 days deadline: 'Much ado about nothing?', The Afghan leak & the UK super injunction, Why did Israel bomb Damascus?
The Independent
6 days ago
- Politics
- The Independent
Political superinjunctions put governments beyond the law – these powers must never be used again
In his first remarks about the Afghan leak affair, Sir Keir Starmer declared to the Commons that former Conservative ministers have ' serious questions to answer ' over the data breach. The prime minister was right about that. However, he should resist the temptation to over-politicise the issue, even as parliament and the media intensify their efforts to uncover the truth. Sir Keir has, after all, been in power for a year. While, in principle, his government could have moved more quickly to lift the extraordinary superinjunction, which shut down any possibility of scrutiny of this blunder for three years, we must remember it was the Conservative government that applied for the injunction in the first instance. Sir Keir, a very senior lawyer who well understands such matters, was reportedly 'angry' when he became prime minister and learned of the gagging order. Meanwhile, the defence minister, John Healey, acknowledged the scandal's potential to erode political trust, expressing that he is 'deeply concerned about the lack of transparency' caused by the superinjunction. The principal culpability in this tragic fiasco obviously lies with the party in power at the time – it was the Conservatives' mess, but Sir Keir will also need to explain why he didn't order his government lawyers to lift the superinjunction immediately. The staggering cost of the cover-up was beginning to look 'bonkers'. Mr Justice Chamberlain called the statement to provide 'cover' a 'very, very striking thing' and said it was 'fundamentally objectionable' that government decisions about thousands of lives and billions of pounds were made without scrutiny from parliament or the public. We certainly do know that this whole episode, and the treatment of Britain's former Afghan allies, has been shameful. In fact, that would be true even if the data breach had never happened. The Independent is proud of its campaign to secure just treatment for the members of the Afghan special forces who served alongside troops from Britain, the US and other nations in that long, pitiless 'war on terror'. Many of these fighters in the Afghan forces, known as the 'Triples' after their unit numbers, had been effectively abandoned as soon as Kabul fell, long before the leak. There were schemes to offer Afghans in danger refuge in the UK. That was an honourable thing to do, but in practice the Ministry of Defence and the Home Office showed great reluctance to act with any urgency after the British and Americans had scuttled out of the conflict, and many Afghans were left in limbo – hiding in Afghanistan or else in Pakistan, permanently at risk of being deported to their deaths. It bears repeating that these are not 'economic migrants' and would never have dreamt of coming to live virtually on the other side of the planet had George W Bush and Tony Blair not decided to invade their country in 2001. The Triples did not ask for that, but they did volunteer to fight with the allies for freedom. They were promised victory over the Taliban; instead they were left behind. Now, we discover that, without their knowledge, they were placed in mortal danger by the leak; even after it was brought to the attention of British ministers – and long after specific details about their role and their family members had found its way out of the Ministry of Defence and, in part, on to Facebook. Betrayed in the chaos of the allies' withdrawal in August 2021, they were thus betrayed once again, even after the government learned of the data breach in August 2023 and did so little to get them to safety, or even to inform them. The Independent publicly raised their plight three months later, in November 2023, when their jeopardy was even more acute. Following this publication's investigation, the Ministry of Defence admitted their decision-making was 'not robust' and announced a review of around 2,000 applications to the resettlement programme. It transpires that about a half of the Afghan ex-commandos initially identified for relocation to the UK were affected by the data breach. The Triples only found out about the blunder as the legal order was lifted this week. Mr Healey now tells parliament that he can't say if any Afghan heroes died at the hands of the Taliban because of the incompetence, negligence and indifference of the British government. That's a low point. Indeed, there are questions to answer. There will be parliamentary inquiries. The press, at last, is able to try to hold those responsible to account, and the ministers and officials involved will have an opportunity to explain and to defend themselves. Everyone from the member of the armed forces who sent the original email to the wrong people on a computer outside the official network to the then prime minister, Rishi Sunak, will be required to give evidence. So should Sir Keir and Mr Healey, who inherited the problem, and launched the Rimmer review into the current risks to the Afghans. Successive chancellors will need to account for how the cost, amounting to billions, was dealt with secretly. Internal memos and notes of meetings should be disclosed. Ben Wallace and Sir Grant Shapps, the defence secretaries in charge at the time of the breach and later legal actions, respectively, will be key witnesses. Even the speaker of the House of Commons, Sir Lindsay Hoyle and his counterpart in the upper chamber, John McFall, will have to give their own version of events and explain their apparent acquiescence in the suppression of parliamentary privilege, which, as Sir Lindsay himself says, 'raises substantial constitutional issues'. Having a speaker appear before a select committee may be unprecedented, but so is everything about this story. After such a long period of intense secrecy, the details of this scandal are still stumbling into the bright glare of public scrutiny. There will be much more embarrassment and shame to come. Transparency has been restored, thanks to our free press, but not yet full accountability. This scandal shows that once this veil of secrecy is in place for legitimate reasons, it can be all too easily used to cloak terrible blunders and duck scrutiny. There are probably no other such political superinjunctions in force, but there should never be any. The law must be changed so that one of the British legal system's most formidable weapons cannot be secretly abused in this way for as long as it has been. The alternative allows for some future populist-authoritarian government to slide into a Trumpian pattern of absolutism, placing itself safely beyond unwelcome investigation. Nothing remotely like this affair should happen again – and any remaining Triples at risk need to be evacuated. No more delays.
Telegraph
6 days ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
MoD warns lawyers it will ‘fight them hard' on Afghan leak compensation
The Ministry of Defence has warned law firms suing for compensation for the Afghan leak victims that it will 'fight them hard'. At least two practices have vowed to take legal action against the Government on behalf of hundreds who claim they were affected by the most damaging data breach in British history. The 2022 leak of details of 18,800 Afghans, along with about 6,000 of their family members, was revealed on Tuesday after a super-injunction was lifted by the High Court. Hundreds of Afghans say the leak by a Royal Marine risked their lives. Compensation cases could cost taxpayers nearly £1bn, with two legal firms saying they are representing clients. However, a spokesman for the MoD said: 'We will do everything possible to defend against any compensation claims. 'We have taken appropriate action in line with the level of risk these individuals faced. Any claims we do get, we will fight them hard.' It is not clear what the MoD's defence would be, and the ministry would not elaborate on this. The breach occurred in February 2022, when the Marine emailed a group of Afghans, accidentally including a spreadsheet naming nearly 25,000 Afghans applying for asylum on the basis they had worked with the British Army, as well as identifying their family members. Law firms are approaching clients to sue the MoD, including Barings Law, based in Manchester, which is acting on behalf of at least 1,000 Afghans who claim they were affected. It was reported the firm sent messages on WhatsApp groups urging Afghans to sign up to the legal case on the expectation they would be given large sums of money, without being able to explain the grounds without breaching the super-injunction. It hopes to claim £50,000 from the MoD for each individual involved in the breach. If all 18,800 soldiers make a successful claim, the compensation bill could be as high as £940m. That sum could grow if any of the Afghan soldiers' family members join the legal claim, taking it towards £1 billion in total. Adnan Malik, head of data protection at Barings Law, said: 'This is an incredibly serious data breach, which the MoD has repeatedly tried to hide from the British public. 'It involved the loss of personal and identifying information about Afghan nationals who have helped British forces to defeat terrorism and support security and stability in the region. 'Through its careless handling of such sensitive information, the MoD has put multiple lives at risk, damaged its own reputation, and put the success of future operations in jeopardy by eroding trust in its data security measures.' Second firm involved The Telegraph can reveal that a second law firm, Leigh Day, is acting for potential clients. A spokesman said the firm had been contacted by clients who had been told by the MoD that their details were part of the data breach. Others approached Leigh Day via its website after reading about its work. Sean Humber, a data breach lawyer, said: 'We are acting for clients affected by the data breach who remain in Afghanistan and others who are now in the UK. 'The priority must be ensuring the safety of those affected by the data breach who remain in Afghanistan. 'The level of compensation is likely to be in the thousands, although the exact amount is likely to vary and will probably be higher for those remaining in Afghanistan compared to those that have successfully relocated to the UK.' The firm said it could not say how many clients it had or how much compensation they were seeking. The leak came to light in 2023, when an anonymous Facebook user posted extracts of the data on the social media site. MoD officials contacted Meta, the company that owns Facebook, and the posts were deleted within three days. However, the Government decided it had no choice but to offer asylum to the Afghans affected because the leak had left them at risk of reprisals from the Taliban. The breach has only just come to public attention after an unprecedented super-injunction was lifted by the High Court. The MoD's combative approach to compensation is a marked contrast to the Tory government's stance over a previous 'BCC incident' in 2021. Then, the MoD mistakenly exposed the personal information of 277 Afghan nationals, some of whom had worked for the British government and were in hiding from the Taliban. A mass email was sent to those, such as interpreters, who could be targeted by the Taliban and were eligible to be relocated. Their emails were added to the 'To' field instead of the 'blind carbon copy' section, meaning their names could be seen by all recipients. The Tory government agreed to set up a taxpayer-funded compensation scheme, which Labour agreed to honour with an offer of up to £4,000 for each of the victims. But they will not do the same for the latest data breach, which is on a much larger scale and could have put 100,000 lives at risk.
Telegraph
6 days ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
Navy chief's role in Afghan leak was covered up
Downing Street blocked news reports that the head of the Royal Navy was involved in the Afghan leak fiasco in the same week his promotion to the role was announced, it has emerged. Government lawyers told journalists they could not reveal that Gen Sir Gwyn Jenkins, now First Sea Lord, was at the heart of a 'national security incident', even if no details about a super-injunction were reported. Gen Sir Gwyn has found himself at the centre of a row over the scandal, in which the details of 25,000 Afghans who applied to be resettled in Britain were leaked. The incident, in February 2022, went undiscovered in Whitehall for 18 months before ministers created a bespoke new evacuation programme for Afghans on the list. The existence of the leak and airlift of thousands of people who helped British forces during the war in Afghanistan was only revealed on Tuesday after a court lifted a super-injunction barring the press from reporting it. It was also revealed that the data was accidentally leaked by a Royal Marine who was working under the command of Gen Sir Gwyn, then the director of Special Forces. After the incident took place, Gen Sir Gwyn was announced as the next UK National Security Adviser, although that promotion was cancelled by Sir Keir Starmer after the general election. The Labour Prime Minister instead promoted him to First Sea Lord, the most senior position in the Navy. It has now been reported that on the week that his promotion was due to be announced, Downing Street was contacted by reporters from The Times, who planned to write a story about his involvement in a ' national security incident '. The newspaper said it did not plan to break the terms of the super-injunction and would not reveal any details about the data leak, which had been banned to protect the Afghans on the list from reprisals by the Taliban. But government lawyers said any reference to an incident and Gen Sir Gwyn's involvement would constitute a breach of the injunction, and could result in reporters being sent to jail. The revelation has piled pressure on the Government, which had already been urged to 'come clean' about why it did not lift the super-injunction sooner. 'Outstanding military officer' Although Gen Sir Gwyn was running the team where the leak originated, ministers have fiercely defended him. John Healey, the Defence Secretary, said he was an 'outstanding military officer' and that 'we need someone like him to lead the Royal Navy through these challenging periods'. A Downing Street spokesman reiterated on Wednesday that the officer had 'no role in any aspect of [Afghan resettlement schemes], including decision-making'. But ministers are under pressure to demonstrate that there have been consequences for the leak, and Gen Sir Gwyn is the only senior member of the Armed Forces who has been named in connection with it. The leaked email was sent by a Royal Marine, who was in charge of vetting asylum seekers, to a group of Afghan contacts in the UK whom they trusted. The soldier worked out of the Regent's Park Barracks in central London under the command of Gen Sir Gwyn. Downing Street has refused to say whether the individual responsible has been sacked. On Wednesday, a spokesman for Kemi Badenoch, the Tory leader, said she believed Gen Sir Gwyn and her former colleagues in the Conservative government should be questioned in Parliament over the super-injunction fiasco, if they were called up. The Commons defence committee, as well as the intelligence and security committee, are both expected to launch inquiries into the leak. 'I think it's fair to say that if the defence select committee wants to look into this, then people should appear in front of it,' Mrs Badenoch 's spokesman said. They added that Gen Sir Gwyn should co-operate with any inquiry. The Prime Minister's official spokesman would not comment on whether the First Sea Lord would appear before a committee, but indicated that a ban on some government employees appearing before MPs would not apply to military officials. Sir Ben Wallace, the former defence secretary who applied for the injunction, said he would make 'no apology' for his role in the debacle. He is expected to be called before any inquiry into the leak. Tan Dhesi, the Labour MP and chairman of the defence committee, said: 'Rigorous safeguards must be in place to ensure that this cannot happen again. It's shameful that brave Afghans who served alongside British soldiers have had their safety jeopardised by this leak. 'While our defence committee has agreed to inquire into this shocking situation, we have yet to determine the full scope for that, including who will be called to give evidence.'
