Shamima Begum’s fight to return to UK isn’t over – as lawyers vow to bring her home
On one hand, this is the story of a 24-year-old woman trying to undo the monumental mistakes of her teenage years.
But as a previous judgment put it, the case of Shamia Begum versus the secretary of state is also about “fundamental principles… of the highest importance”.
They are the privileges of British citizenship that have existed ever since the Magna Carta, the right not to be exiled. But these are set against the government’s duty to uphold and safeguard the security of the United Kingdom.
Shamima Begum is 24 now. She was 15 years old when in February 2015 she fled to Syria and married an Islamic State fighter. Four years later she emerged from the defeated caliphate, discovered in a refugee camp in northern Syria.
Since then, she’s wanted to come home, but the government revoked her British citizenship leading to a protracted legal battle through high and supreme courts.
The ruling by the Special Immigration Appeal Commission in February 2023 was that the home secretary had the right to make that decision.
It doesn’t necessarily follow that the home secretary’s decision is right, based on the merits of this case. That’s what her lawyers have argued in this latest appeal; that essentially the courts shouldn’t wash their hands from scrutinising that question, with what they describe as “impenetrable deference to the Secretary of State in reaching conclusions where national security is raised.”
They put forward five reasons why the decision was wrong and unlawful, but each was dismissed today as not significant enough to overturn the ruling.
For example, while the government argues Ms Begum is responsible for her actions, the February 2023 the appeals commission ruling found “credible suspicion” that she was trafficked to Syria for sexual exploitation.
Her lawyers argued that in other circumstances where a child is groomed for exploitation, they are considered a victim.
Even so, it was judged last year that this doesn’t outweigh the right of the government to ban her return on security grounds and the appeal court judges agreed.
But there are also questions over the impact of revoking her citizenship on wider society, especially among the Muslim population.
‘If she returns, she may divulge crucial information’
By statute, the government cannot deprive a person of citizenship if it would render them stateless.
Technically Ms Begum had Bangladeshi citizenship until the age of 21, because her parents were born there. But she had no links with the country and Bangladesh disowned her.
At her old home of Bethnal Green, a world away from the Al Roj camp in northern Syria where she now resides, this has not gone unnoticed, and some feel that their heritage therefore makes them less British in the eyes of the law.
Father of three Shafique Islam, who lives metres from where Shamima went to school, said: “I feel like I’m not really British, even though I have a passport. It can be stripped that easily.”
A former local councillor, Rabina Khan, says the public would be better protected by an inquiry into how Shamima was radicalised.
Four young girls from one school were brainwashed into going to join ISIS and others had to be stopped from going.
Ms Khan says if Shamima returns, she may divulge crucial information.
She said: “We have failed in our duty of care to young people. We never called for a public inquiry to find out what happened, in the same place where all these children were radicalised.
“Was it a youth worker, was it a teacher, did they meet someone outside, was it a learning mentor, was it a counsellor?
“We just don’t know. I wonder if these people are still among us, and we don’t know who they are.”
‘As long as she’s there, it’s not the end’
But these are not questions for the court – it is for the government to decide how lessons should be learned – and how to weigh up other issues alongside the threat posed to national security by the return of Shamima Begum.
Giving the ruling, Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr said: “It could be argued the decision in Ms Begum’s case was harsh. It could also be argued that Ms Begum is the author of her own misfortune.
“But it is not for this court to agree or disagree with either point of view.”
In court, just before today’s ruling, I asked Ms Begum’s solicitor, Gareth Peirce, whether if they lost, this would mark the end of her legal action. She replied: “As long as she is there, it is not the end.”
Outside afterwards, her legal team talked of the dire conditions in the camp where Ms Begum still lives, and their hope that perhaps a new government would bring a more sympathetic approach.