London, UK – Former Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, Sir Declan Morgan, has stated that the British government was wrong to strip Shamima Begum of her citizenship, describing the current approach to nationality deprivation as “unsustainable and inconsistent with human rights obligations.” His remarks come as part of a major review by the Independent Commission on UK Counter-Terrorism Law, Policy and Practice, which he chairs.
Speaking during the launch of the commission’s new report at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) in Westminster, Sir Declan said that the government’s treatment of Begum and others in similar situations “should not have happened” under the principles of fairness and equality before the law.
He emphasized that, under the commission’s recommendations, Begum’s British citizenship would not have been revoked, highlighting the need for a new legal framework that prioritizes accountability, transparency, and human rights compliance in counter-terrorism policy.
The Background: A Controversial Case
Shamima Begum, now 26, was born and raised in East London. In 2015, at the age of 15, she and two school friends travelled to Syria, joining the Islamic State (IS) group at the height of its control. Soon after her arrival, Begum married an IS fighter and had three children, all of whom later died.
In 2019, the British government stripped her of citizenship on national security grounds, arguing that she was eligible for Bangladeshi nationality through her parents. Bangladesh, however, denied this claim, leaving her effectively stateless.
Begum has since remained in a detention camp in northeast Syria, where hundreds of foreign nationals linked to IS are held. Her legal team has repeatedly challenged the government’s decision, arguing that she was a victim of child trafficking and that British authorities failed to protect her.
Despite these arguments, courts upheld the government’s decision, with the Supreme Court refusing to hear her latest appeal last year.
Sir Declan Morgan’s Criticism
Sir Declan Morgan, who served as Northern Ireland’s most senior judge between 2009 and 2021 and currently sits on the supplementary panel of the UK Supreme Court, has emerged as one of the most high-profile critics of the UK’s citizenship deprivation policy.
At the Westminster event, he said that the current legal framework “undermines equal protection among British citizens” and risks eroding the country’s moral authority on the world stage.
According to Morgan, the government “should be taking responsibility for its citizens rather than abandoning them abroad.” He added that repatriation and due legal process, not indefinite exile, are the appropriate responses to national security concerns.
“The deprivation of citizenship, particularly for individuals who were children when they left the country, cannot be justified under international law,” he said. “It creates a two-tier system of citizenship, where some people are more vulnerable to punishment than others simply because of their heritage.”
Key Findings from the Independent Commission’s Report
The Independent Commission on UK Counter-Terrorism Law, Policy and Practice, chaired by Morgan, conducted a three-year review of the country’s counter-terrorism framework. Its findings offer one of the most comprehensive critiques of the UK’s approach in recent years.
1. Lowering Thresholds for Citizenship Removal
The report notes that over the past two decades, the threshold for depriving individuals of British nationality has been steadily lowered. Initially used only in extreme cases involving treason or terrorism, the power has since expanded, allowing the Home Secretary to strip citizenship if it is deemed “conducive to the public good.”
2. Unequal Protection and Disproportionate Impact
The commission found evidence that citizenship deprivation disproportionately affects British ethnic minority communities. Individuals with dual heritage or potential claims to another nationality are far more likely to lose their citizenship than those without.
This, the report argues, results in “unequal protection under the law” and effectively creates “second-class citizenship” for certain groups.
3. Presumption of Other Nationality
Although UK law formally prohibits statelessness, deprivation orders often proceed on the assumption that the person is eligible for another nationality — even when that country refuses to recognize them. In Begum’s case, Bangladesh’s refusal to grant citizenship demonstrates the flaw in this presumption.
4. Human Rights and International Obligations
The commission concluded that the government’s approach violates human rights norms, including the right to nationality, due process, and protection against inhuman or degrading treatment. It stated that the UK’s policy is “inconsistent with international standards” and may expose the country to reputational and legal risks.
The Call for Repatriation
The report strongly advocates for the repatriation of British citizens and residents detained in Syria and Iraq, including those stripped of citizenship.
It describes the current situation in the Syrian detention camps — such as Al Hol and Al Roj — as “inhuman and degrading.” Conditions in these camps, it said, resemble “a new Guantanamo,” referencing the US facility in Cuba notorious for indefinite detentions.
According to estimates cited by the commission, between 50 and 70 British-linked individuals remain detained in these camps, including 12 to 30 children, roughly half under the age of ten.
“Several women in these camps were minors when they left the UK and should be considered victims of trafficking,” the report states. “The government has a particular obligation to protect these children and provide safe repatriation.”
The commission recommends appointing a special envoy to oversee repatriation and rehabilitation programs, ensuring returnees face lawful prosecution or deradicalization initiatives where appropriate.
International Comparisons
The report highlights that Britain’s approach has made it an outlier among Western democracies. While the UK continues to strip citizenship and limit consular assistance, other countries — including the United States, Canada, Australia, and several European nations — have successfully repatriated many of their citizens from conflict zones.
Former Attorney General Dominic Grieve, a member of the commission, remarked that the UK’s strategy of “strategic distance” has isolated it diplomatically. He warned that continuing to fund Kurdish security forces to hold detainees indefinitely risks creating what could be seen as “Britain’s own Guantanamo.”
“The United States and Canada have managed to bring home and prosecute or reintegrate many of their citizens,” Grieve said. “The UK stands almost alone in refusing to do so.”
Risks of Leaving Citizens Abroad
The commission argues that leaving citizens in indefinite detention poses greater long-term risks than repatriation. Camps in Syria remain volatile, and security conditions are deteriorating, raising fears of escape, radicalization, and future instability.
“An organized program of return, investigation, and reintegration is the best option for managing risk,” the report says. “The alternative — indefinite detention and abandonment — is neither sustainable nor moral.”
Experts also warn that continuing the current policy may lead to more dangerous outcomes, as individuals may escape the camps and return to the UK undetected, outside any legal or security framework.
The Legal and Ethical Debate
The issue of citizenship deprivation strikes at the heart of Britain’s national identity and values. Critics argue that the policy effectively divides citizens into two categories — those who can never lose their nationality, and those whose citizenship is conditional.
Legal scholars point out that this imbalance undermines the principle of equality before the law and risks stigmatizing entire communities.
Ethically, the policy raises questions about accountability. Should the UK government bear responsibility for citizens who committed crimes abroad, or does revocation absolve the state of that duty?
Sir Declan Morgan’s position is clear: “Governments cannot simply offload responsibility for their citizens onto other nations or regions. The rule of law demands accountability — even when it is uncomfortable.”
Reactions and Next Steps
The commission’s findings have sparked renewed debate across legal, political, and human rights circles. Civil society organizations have welcomed the report as a step toward restoring fairness and proportionality in counter-terrorism policy.
Human rights advocates have called on the government to act immediately, citing not only legal obligations but also moral responsibility. Meanwhile, national security officials maintain that the government must retain flexibility to protect the public.
A Home Office spokesperson reiterated that citizenship deprivation remains “a vital tool for protecting the UK from individuals who pose a threat to national security.” However, growing pressure from the legal community and human rights campaigners could lead to parliamentary discussions on potential reforms.
Toward a New Legal Framework
The Independent Commission’s report outlines several practical recommendations for reform:
- End citizenship deprivation for UK-born nationals.
British citizenship should be permanent for anyone born or registered as British, ensuring equality under the law. - Tighten the definition of terrorism.
The commission calls for a narrower, more precise definition to prevent misuse of counter-terrorism powers. - Repatriate citizens from conflict zones.
Establish a formal process for return, prosecution, and rehabilitation under UK law. - Increase transparency and judicial oversight.
Citizenship removal decisions should be subject to stronger independent review. - Protect children and trafficking victims.
Special protections should apply to minors and those coerced or exploited by terrorist networks.
The Broader Implications
The Shamima Begum case continues to resonate deeply within Britain’s national consciousness. It reflects the tension between justice and security, compassion and retribution, citizenship and exclusion.
If the government accepts the commission’s recommendations, it could mark a major shift in British counter-terrorism policy — moving away from exile and toward accountability through legal means.
For now, Begum remains in a detention camp in Syria, her future uncertain. But the debate her case has reignited could reshape the principles that define what it means to be British in the modern era.