Shamima Begum’s Appeal Loss: the Home Office and Danger of Statelessness

On the 23 February, 2024, Shamima Begum was denied her appeal against the deprivation of her British citizenship—rendering her effectively “stateless”.

Begum, whose story has received extensive coverage in British and international media, left the United Kingdom as a 15-year-old to join ISIL in Syria. Upon arriving in Syria, Begum was married to an ISIL fighter, whom she had two children with. Neither child survived past infancy. In 2019 Begum was found pregnant in a Syrian refugee camp, asking to return to the UK for the well-being of her unborn child. Shortly after, then Home Secretary Sajid Javid revoked her citizenship on “national security grounds” due to her connection to the terror group. Begum’s third child also passed away due to the conditions in the refugee camp.

Since this deprivation of her citizenship, Begum has been embroiled in various processes of appeal to secure her citizenship. Depriving Begum of her citizenship was deemed lawful by a UK tribunal in 2019 due to Begum’s potential to hold Bangladeshi citizenship through her mother’s status as a citizen of that state, despite never having visited Bangladesh and the country stating they would not permit her entrance. 

What followed for Begum was a series of decisions regarding from where she could appeal her revocation of citizenship, ultimately deciding in 2021 that she must appeal from outside the United Kingdom. Her legal team also tried, unsuccessfully, in 2023 to argue that the Home Office had not seriously investigated the claim that Begum had been trafficked, with a judge ruling that such grounds were insufficient alone for her appeal to succeed.

The 2024 ruling is the latest in this series of appeals, in which the primary argument put forth by Begum’s lawyers was that she was a victim of human trafficking as a child. The Court largely dismissed the claims of human trafficking as relevant to the case, with Dame Sue Carr, the head of the Court, stating “It could also be argued that Miss Begum is the author of her own misfortune. But it is not for this court to agree or disagree with either point of view”.

The dismissal of human trafficking claims has triggered considerable concern from experts, expressed in a UN press release, who state that the “circumstances were never properly investigated” despite “credible suspicion that Ms Begum was recruited, transferred and then harboured for the purpose of sexual exploitation”.

These experts also point to the key issue of Begum being rendered stateless as deplorable, urging “British authorities to take steps to ensure Ms Begum’s protection and to follow the lead of many other governments who are now repatriating women and children from northeast Syria”.

Begum’s statelessness and deprivation of citizenship, while certainly exceptional in their public attention and arguably the vilification of Begum as an “ISIS-bride”, are indicative of the regime of British citizenship and the power of the Home Office more broadly. The fact that “[h]er statelessness now does not change whether that decision was lawful” is of pressing concern.

According to a research briefing from the House of Commons Library, the Home Office has made at least 1,064 deprivation orders from 2010 to 2022. There is also no requirement for the Home Office to notify those deprived of their citizenship of this change in status, if they reason it would threaten national security.

While British citizens with singular nationality are protected against this deprivation, Begum’s case reveals the power the Home Office holds in determining how this protection fits. Begum simply had the potential of being a dual national, however, did not have Bangladeshi citizenship nor necessarily had the option of obtaining it. It must be noted that some, such as the Institute for Race Relations, have pointed to the potential for discrimination against those from ethnic minority backgrounds who are more likely to have dual nationality, or in Begum’s case, with those in their recent ancestry who are born outside the UK.

On a more fundamental level, as Begum remains (with no end date in sight) in the wretched conditions of the al-Roj detention camp in Syria, her statelessness reminds us of the power of the UK government—and other nations more broadly—to push individuals outside the purview of having access to basic human rights and dignity.

The decision that Begum’s citizenship deprival was lawful may be framed as a win for national security, but on the other side of that decision an individual is left in one of the most precarious positions possible. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, stateless persons are exposed to abuse and exploitation, limited in their access to basic needs from healthcare to education. In an international system where one’s nation exists as the safeguard of human rights, existing outside that framework is a dangerous limbo.

Shamima Begum’s future is yet to be seen; though the denial of appeals has left little avenues left it appears her lawyers may still attempt to see the reinstatement of her citizenship realised. Begum’s case brings into sharp view the danger of statelessness and the frightening power of the Home Office—or the Home Secretary alone—to push individuals into this position. When raising the discussion of national security, the question of human rights must also be asked.

Should the Home Office be able to render individuals unable to access their basic needs or outside the protection of their nation? Further, who is largely being deprived of this right? And while the worry over security, terrorism, and safety can be understood, it must be asked if deprivation of citizenship, an extreme step with horrific repercussions, is the only way these issues can be realised.

Image courtesy of DawnyH via FreeimagesUK, ©2024. Some rights reserved.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the wider St. Andrews Foreign Affairs Review team.