On Friday 26th February, it was reported that Shamima Begum had failed to restore her British citizenship after the Supreme Court ruled that she had lost her case.
15-year-old Begum from Bethnal Green had fled the UK as a schoolgirl to join Islamic State in Syria in 2015. Her British citizenship was revoked in 2019 by the then home secretary, Sajid Javid, on accounts of concerns around national security. British nationality law allows the home secretary to remove a person’s UK citizenship if doing so is deemed to be “conducive to the public good”. However, it is illegal to revoke a person’s nationality if doing so would leave them stateless. There has been quite a debate that Begum could claim a Bangladeshi citizenship through her parents’ heritage. But, Bangladesh has consistently denied such statements considering Begum is born and brought up in the UK.
The judgment in a way sets precedent on the UK’s policy to strip the citizenship of Britons who went to join ISIS and are being detained by Syrian Kurdish groups without trial. Lord Reed, the president of the court, said its judges had decided unanimously to rule in favour of the home secretary and against Begum on all counts before it. This means the 21-year-old will not be able to re-enter the UK to fight her case in person and will not be able to have her citizenship restored while she is being detained in Syria.
“The supreme court unanimously allows the home secretary’s appeals and dismisses Ms Begum’s cross-appeal,” Reed said.
But the court also stated that Begum could have a final appeal against the decision to revoke her citizenship if she were to be in a position where she could properly instruct lawyers. However, her detention in a Syrian camp, where she is not able to communicate with her legal team, makes that unlikely.
In a statement, Home Secretary, Priti Patel said, “The government will always take the strongest possible action to protect our national security and our priority remains maintaining the safety and security of our citizens.”
In a 47-page ruling, the supreme court said the court of appeal had been wrong to conclude that Begum should be allowed to enter the UK and fight her case in person by substituting its own reasoning in place of the home secretary.
“It made its own assessment of the requirements of national security, and preferred it to that of the home secretary, despite the absence of any relevant evidence before it,” the judgment said. “Its approach did not give the home secretary’s assessment the respect which it should have received, given that it is the home secretary who has been charged by parliament with responsibility for making such assessments.”
