Afghan relocation cover - up

A disgusting attempt to hood wink the public.

Yesterday’s news on the Afghan relocation cover – up is not an ordinary story. I am used to governments lying to my face and daring me to question them. What I never thought they would do is seek an superinjunction to stop a story ever getting into the public domain so they wouldn’t even bother lying to us.

The last Conservative and the current Labour government’s attempt to co – opt the courts into their disgusting scheme to shut down information of a £7 billion pound mistake that will see 24,000 Afghans relocated to the UK is a new low for the British state.

How do you cover up a £7 billion mistake? You get a superinjunction is what you do. Yesterday it was revealed that a list of Afghans who had helped the British army was ‘leaked’ by a soldier resulting in a relocation scheme that will cost up to £7 billion. The conservative government sought a superinjunction to keep the whole thing secret, fearing some taxpayers might become a little angry if this level of incompetence was revealed.

So let’s be clear. This disaster is not the fault of the activist judges or the human rights lawyers, this is on the Conservatives and then Labour. If you thought voting Tory instead of Labour would solve your problems this should disabuse you of this notion.

Some basics first, as it’s easy to get lost in this one.

· The British military is responsible for a data leak that put up to 100,000 Afghans at risk of death — and successive governments have spent years fighting to keep it secret using an unprecedented superinjunction.

· Some 24,000 Afghans affected by the breach have either been brought to the UK already or will be in future as part of the biggest covert evacuation operation in peacetime.

· Up to £7 billions of taxpayers’ money was once earmarked to handle the fallout.

The ‘leak’ happened like this: In February 2022 a soldier inadvertently sent a list of tens of thousands of names to Afghans as he tried to help verify applications for sanctuary in Britain. The database of 33,000 records was then passed on and one of the individuals who received it threatened to publish the dataset on Facebook, which it was feared would have given the Taliban what amounted to a “kill list.” A highly secretive mission, codenamed Operation Rubific, was launched to shut down the leak and stop the details of the breach becoming public.

This kicked off a sorry tale of offering refuge to tens of thousands of Afghans to the cost of £7 billion and then getting the courts to cover it up on behalf of the government, essentially blackmailing them by saying if the superinjunction was not imposed ‘lives would be lost.’

In September 2023, a superinjunction — the first to be deployed by the government and the longest ever — which prevented anyone revealing even the existence of such an order, was put in place. It was lifted yesterday.

“If the Taliban did gain access, the MoD said as many as 100,000 Afghans would be at “risk of death, torture, intimidation or harassment”. The figure took into account the individuals who had applied for sanctuary in the UK plus their family members, some of whom were named in the dataset. It was the stuff of “nightmares”, government lawyers said in court as they argued to maintain the superinjunction.”

In October last year Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, signed off a secret plan, which had begun under the Conservatives, to spend up to £7 billion over five years on bringing 25,000 of those affected to the UK. The 25,000 were not previously eligible to come to the UK. The policy was widened in June to include more than 42,500 individuals. That final number seems to have been walked back, and seen as disproportionate.

A total of 18,500 Afghans, less than one fifth of those caught up in the breach, have already been flown to the UK and put up in hotels or military bases.

Photo by ayush kumar on Unsplash

Some 5,400 more Afghans who have already received invitation letters will be flown to the UK in the coming weeks, bringing the total number of Afghans affected by the breach being brought to the UK to 23,900. The rest of the affected Afghans will be left behind.

So the UK is now plus 23,900 Afghans and less £7 billion. It could be less than £7 billion it is not clear if that will be the final cost.

It was the Daily Mail and the Times that fought successfully to have this superinjunction lifted.

Some quotes from the proceedings reveal a lot about what the then Labour government thought of voters in November 2024. The lawyer for the government Cathryn McGahey KC when asked (I am paraphrasing) how the government is going to account for up to £7 billion of public money, says cover will be provided.

It is Mr Justice Chamberlain who remarks “the statement to Parliament will 'provide cover'. It is a completely unprecedented situation, but we are seeing a witness statement indicating a statement to Parliament to provide 'cover'. It is a very, very striking thing.” In other words, a witness statement was provided to the courts explaining that some sort of statement will be made to Parliament providing cover for the £7 billion black hole. That sounds like misleading Parliament to me.

It is my old friend Jude Bunting KC challenging the superinjunction (you remember him from Kneecap) who actually puts it best. “One of the key issues in the political debate right now is who is telling the truth about the public deficit. This is directly relevant to that debate. And another key issue is immigration. The injunction is stopping informed debate about how to house people coming to this country...That 'agreed narrative' is misleading the public by omission.”

He also says, “The Government is saying it is going to deliberately mislead the public.”

And, “it is corrosive of democracy. It prevents the public being informed about the reason for £6billion of expenditure, at a time when immigration is at the forefront of debate. The courts have enabled the government to put a false narrative in place that would be corrosive.”

I don’t think I can improve on that one. He’s called it as it is, has Mr Bunting KC. The government lawyer just kept waving around the prospect of dead bodies. ‘Secrecy has to be maintained to protect life’ she said.

I am not denying the real threat to life in this case but I always find this sort of emotional blackmail cheap and unconvincing. If you dig deep enough there is always a dead body somewhere The Taliban have a kill list. Surprise me – that’s what the Taliban do. They have been killing women for years and that will only get worse now that they have deprived women of basic care in childbirth. How many women will die as a result of that decision but you won’t see them flown to Britain.

They did a great job there in Afghanistan there did Tony Blair. Top notch stuff.

There is little I can add to this scandal. You can clean out the adjective cupboard on my behalf. Just know that the Conservative government followed by the Labour government wanted to keep you in the dark over a £7 billion scheme to locate up to 40,000 Afghans now walked back to just under 24,000. I mean it is not the Afghans fault but that’s a lot of peeps who once lived under the Taliban coming to a town called something – shire near you.

And as the human rights lawyer himself said – the superinjunction was sought to provide cover for an omni – shambles of a mistake and critically, put in a narrative and to shut down debate over immigration and public expenditure. It’s outrageous. I’ll allow myself one adjective.

The Times editorial referred to a superinjunction sought by the government as a tool of authoritarianism. They are correct. It concluded, “in terms of free speech the superinjunction is a weapon of mass destruction. No government should be allowed to employ one again.” Exactly.

Oh, I just remembered former Defence Secretary Ben Wallace was knighted. Of course he was.