Latest news with #Afghanrefugees
Times
7 days ago
- Politics
- Times
‘They're playing with our lives': Afghans rue placing trust in the UK
A t first, there was confusion. Thousands of Afghans started receiving emails on Tuesday morning warning them their personal information may have been 'compromised'. Then, at midday — when an unprecedented superinjunction was lifted in the High Court — there was panic. 'We understand this news may be concerning,' the email from the UK government told them. Afghans who had sought sanctuary in Britain were warned to 'exercise caution and not take phone calls or respond to messages or emails from unknown contacts'. They were told not to travel to third countries without a valid passport and visa. 'If you do so, you will be putting yourself at risk on the journey, and you may face the risk of being deported back to Afghanistan,' it said.
The Guardian
7 days ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
Grant Shapps pushed for MoD Afghan superinjunction to remain in place
Former defence secretary Grant Shapps insisted that the Ministry of Defence press for the continuation of an extraordinary superinjunction to prevent reporting of an embarrassing leak of personal data belonging to 18,700 Afghans. Two sources present in the MoD at the time say that Shapps wanted to mount an aggressive legal defence in the hope that the data breach affecting would-be Afghan refugees to the UK would remain secret for as long as possible. One said that Shapps believed he had been successful in fighting legal actions when he ran other government departments by being combative, though others thought the superinjunction was excessive and unlikely to endure. Shapps was approached for comment directly and through a former aide. The former minister has not so far commented on the affair, though he was the defence secretary during a period when the data breach was covered up – and a secret relocation scheme for about 15,000 Afghans affected was drawn up at a cost of £2bn. The legal battle, between the MoD and various media groups, ran on so long that the data breach and its consequences did not become public before the general election on 4 July 2024. Though a high court judge wanted to end the superinjunction in May 2024, the MoD successfully appealed to the court of appeal three weeks after the vote. Labour said responsibility for the affair lay with the previous Conservative government. At the start of prime minister's questions, Keir Starmer said: 'Ministers who served under the party opposite have serious questions to answer about how this was ever allowed to happen.' Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative leader, did not mention the Afghan scheme at prime minister's questions, instead focusing her questions on the economy. After the exchanges in the chamber, Labour said she had been offered a security briefing about the situation in March but refused. Badenoch's spokesperson said that as opposition leader she received 'innumerable' offers of security briefings, and had refused this one as it was not marked as urgent. In June the issue was listed as urgent, so she sought a briefing, and was informed about the scheme on Monday, he added. The Commons defence committee also said it would hold an inquiry. Its chair, Tan Dhesi, said: 'We want to get to the bottom of what has happened on behalf of parliament, which, by the way, has been sidelined for too long on this issue, on behalf of the people.' Earlier this week, the government acknowledged that 6,900 Afghans would be relocated in the previously secret Afghan Response Route scheme at a cost of £850m. But it also said the scheme would now be halted, meaning that £1.2bn more would not be spent on flying over a further 9,500 Afghans to the UK. Confirmation of the details was only possible because the high court concluded the superinjuction could no longer be justified. It followed a fresh government assessment that said there was no longer a serious danger to Afghans named on the database. The leak had originally stemmed from a defence official emailing the sensitive data to the wrong recipients early in 2022. However, news of the breach only reached the MoD in August 2023 after some of the information appeared on a Facebook group. In one of his last acts, Ben Wallace, Shapps's predecessor, 'personally' took the decision to apply for an ordinary injunction, court papers show. That request was accepted by the high court in an initial hearing. It was feared that had the Taliban become aware of the database and obtained it, those named would be at risk of reprisals and could end up on a 'kill list' because of a simple mistake made by a British defence official. However, unexpectedly, the judge, Mr Justice Knowles, also ruled that the existence of his ruling remain secret – so turning the court order into a superinjunction, meaning that it would not be circulated and so be much harder to discover. Superinjuctions are considered an extreme legal order and were in the past used by celebrities such as the footballers John Terry and Ryan Giggs to try to stop reporting about their private lives. Governments have only used them rarely. Shapps took over as defence secretary on 31 August 2023 – two days before Knowles issued his ruling. At the time the judge's decision surprised many within the MoD because it had gone further than they sought. But by the time a second judge, Mr Justice Chamberlain, reviewed the gagging order in November, the MoD's position had changed. The department's lawyer said that while the MoD 'had not sought a superinjunction' in the first place that 'since one had been granted, it should now be continued'. Court judgments released on Tuesday, as the superinjuction lapsed, show that there was surprise that the unusual legal mechanism proved so effective. In his final ruling, Chamberlain described it as 'one of the many remarkable features of the litigation'.
.png%3Fwidth%3D1200%26height%3D800%26crop%3D1200%3A800&w=3840&q=100)
The Independent
16-07-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
‘We failed those who protected us': Independent readers react to UK's ‘shameful' MoD data breach
A catastrophic Ministry of Defence data breach that exposed the details of thousands of Afghans seeking refuge in the UK was kept secret for nearly two years under an unprecedented superinjunction, The Independent has revealed. The leak, which occurred in February 2022, compromised sensitive information about applicants to the MoD's Arap resettlement scheme – a programme for Afghans who had supported British forces and now feared Taliban reprisals. Officials launched a top-secret response, codenamed Operation Rubific, resulting in the covert evacuation of more than 16,000 people to the UK. The government was prepared to relocate up to 42,000 in total at a projected cost of £7bn. The extraordinary cover-up meant MPs, the public and even many within Whitehall were kept in the dark. A court battle led by The Independent and other media finally overturned the superinjunction this week, raising serious questions about transparency, accountability, and the treatment of those who risked their lives for Britain. Reactions from readers have been swift and damning, touching on moral responsibility, government secrecy, institutional incompetence, and the human cost of this breach. Many drew parallels with past scandals, while others demanded consequences and urgent reform. Here's what you had to say: Britain has a moral responsibility It is an expensive programme, that is true, but the problem is a very big one. The whole thing was bungled from the start – remember Dominic Raab staying on his holiday in Crete while Kabul was being evacuated? And the nature of the leak is just incredible. The billions this costs, spread out over several years, are desperately needed elsewhere, but as with the Gurkhas, Britain has a moral responsibility. RegCostello Strain (i) 'Prioritisation of Ukrainian nationals' and (ii) 'drastically increased work-from-home arrangements for civil servants' were the main reasons given for the months-long consular waits for visas and passport processing in 2022 and 2023. I wonder whether this massive evacuation from Afghanistan contributed to that strain, or whether it was all managed by a separate–and–covert department. Either way, covert or not, every resource has its limit, doesn't it? Ever more freely and transparently may truths emerge! IndySpannerPhones Many are still in danger Hopefully the Labour government will quickly step up the process of getting all to safety. It's been over a year, but many are still in danger. The government needs to ensure that 10 per cent of evacuees do not end up homeless, as they suggested could be the case in October 2024. PropagandaoftheDeed A national shame The way we treated these people who helped us at great risk is a national shame. Albert Ginwallah Corruption or shambles? Hmmm... so Britain's security is more at risk from the government and MoD! Well, I for one am not surprised at all. And that goes for the cover-up and lies from successive governments! Look at the Post Office and Horizon, the blood contamination saga. Is it corruption or a shambles? Red Dragon Has the person been sacked? My first question is: has the person who sent the email been sacked and prosecuted for breaching confidentiality as well as costing the country some £400m? If not, why not? TomHawk Spare a thought for Afghan women This was a chaotic Tory mess-up, as is traditional. Against the scale of the issue, this ethical UK response is tiny. Spare a thought for the 450k Afghan refugee women forcibly repatriated from Iran and Pakistan since Jan 2025, who are instantly criminalised for travelling alone back to a medieval regime where women and girls have a value less than livestock. Herbacious Scandal after scandal Is there anything the UK government can run? Scandal after scandal after scandal. Billions upon billions p***** up the wall. A little bridge in a London park, £36 million? Chichee Let's have an expensive public inquiry Wow – a government cover-up. That's a surprise. Let's have an expensive public inquiry at the cost to us taxpayers that will last the next five years, with the familiar outcome stating lessons will be learnt… Once that's out of the way, we can then promote the 'guilty' individuals to the House of Lords. theSpycatcher A get-out clause A "superinjunction" is basically the get-out clause for despotic governments (or in the case of Britain, the rancid ruling class). stonia Keeping the public in the dark How ironic that the British establishment invests huge efforts in keeping the public in the dark about so many things of public interest – and yet is incapable of protecting sensitive data when lives actually depend on it. Danilov How? Data like this should never leave a secure government server. What on earth is it doing being emailed to random people and posted on Facebook? And how do you 'inadvertently share' a file? sj99 Incompetence should have consequences Incompetence on such a massive scale should have consequences; otherwise, it sends the wrong message. It says: don't worry about being diligent, do what you like, it doesn't matter. Sean Shameful As if the data breach itself wasn't appalling enough, the fact that this individual is still employed in another department at the MoD is absolutely shameful. Cyclone8 Only in the UK public sector... Where else but the UK public sector can someone do something that puts people's lives at risk and costs £400m to sort out, yet keep your job and your pension? If there is any better illustration of how we are let down by our public sector, I can't think of it. These days, our public sector is the refuge of those who should not be let loose with a broom, let alone handle sensitive matters. TomHawk We are failing to protect those we put at risk Bloody shambles. We should have offered sanctuary to those who were at risk just because of who their former employer was – the MoD. While the news and politics are all about 'illegal immigrants, ' we are failing to protect those we put at risk. Shameful. Snaughter
Times of Oman
08-06-2025
- Politics
- Times of Oman
US travel ban adds to uncertainty for thousands of Afghan immigrants
Kabul: Thousands of Afghans holding P1 and P2 US immigration cases remain in complete uncertainty as they await a response from the US government, following the White House's recent announcement of a travel ban, TOLOnews reported. Many of these individuals had been stranded in third countries like Pakistan for over three years, relying on US promises for their cases to be processed. Some caseholders told TOLOnews that the new travel restrictions were causing significant concern. Mohammad Javid Kohsari, a US immigration caseholder, said, "We hope the travel ban does not include immigrants or P1 and P2 case holders because about three years ago, we came to third countries based on US promises. Immigrants in Pakistan are grappling with numerous problems," TOLOnews reported. Another holder of a US immigration case, who wished to remain anonymous, said, "We and other Afghans in Pakistan and other third countries who are awaiting the processing of our cases have completed most legal steps, including embassy interviews and health checks," TOLOnews added. US President Donald Trump announced the travel ban targeting Afghan citizens along with nationals from eleven other countries, stating that these countries did not have their domestic situations under control. He said the goal was to keep "bad people" out of the US. The United Nations emphasized that while every country has the right to manage its borders, any system put in place must respect human dignity. UN Secretary-General spokesman Stephane Dujarric said, "Our position globally has been that any system established in this regard must preserve human dignity." Meanwhile, the US State Department clarified that Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Afghans was a temporary measure that could end at any time. Tommy Pigott, principal deputy spokesperson for the Department of State, said, "The temporary protected status is only one dynamic when it comes to many different ways that people from Afghanistan have come to this country." The main concern remained about P1 and P2 cases--programs designed for vulnerable individuals such as civil activists and employees of international organizations. According to the head of AfghanEvac, these programs were currently suspended but, unlike the Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) program, were exempt from the travel ban.
