Fears over influx of jihadists as Begum returns to court
SHAMIMA BEGUM will return to court this week to insist she is no longer a national security threat, in a case that could open the floodgates to returning jihadists.
Ms Begum fled to Syria to join Islamic State as a 15-year-old in 2015, only to resurface in a refugee camp in 2019 after the so-called caliphate crumbled.
Her British citizenship was stripped by Sajid Javid, then home secretary, setting in motion a series of legal battles as she fought to return to the UK.
Now 23, Ms Begum will bring her case back before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) to challenge the Home Office’s claim she is a danger to national security.
It is the second part of her SIAC case, after the court initially ruled Mr Javid did not unlawfully render her stateless by removing her citizenship, as she has Bangladeshi citizenship by descent.
Ms Begum continues to be held at the Roj camp in northern Syria, which is run by the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). She has lost three children since travelling to the war zone.
At the time she was deprived of her citizenship, her family in the UK were told by the Government that MI5 “considers that an individual assessed to have travelled to Syria and to have aligned with IS poses a threat to national security”. There is significant concern among authorities that, if Ms Begum were to win the case, it could set a precedent that allows an influx of jihadists.
It has been estimated that about 60 British citizens are being held in indefinite detention in Syria after fleeing areas once controlled by Islamic State.
But a greater threat could be posed by up to 150 terror suspects who have been stripped of their British citizenship and could challenge their own rulings if Ms Begum’s case succeeds.
The prospect of keeping under surveillance dozens of battle-hardened jihadists continues to be the source of serious concern for authorities.
Ms Begum’s lawyers intend to argue that she was a victim of child trafficking when she travelled to the Middle East.
They accuse the Home Office of failing to consider whether she had been taken to Syria “for the purposes of sexual exploitation and forced marriage”.