The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has formally questioned the UK government over its controversial 2019 decision to revoke the British citizenship of Shamima Begum. The court's intervention has reignited a fierce political debate over national security, child trafficking, and the role of international courts.
Legal Challenge Focuses on Trafficking Claims
Begum's legal team, Birnberg Peirce Solicitors, is challenging the decision made by the then Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, under Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits slavery and forced labour. They argue that Begum was a victim of child trafficking when, at the age of 15, she left her east London home in 2015 to travel to territory controlled by the Islamic State (IS).
In a document published this month, judges in Strasbourg posed several questions to the UK Home Office. A central query asks whether the Home Secretary had a duty to consider if Begum was a trafficking victim before deciding to deprive her of citizenship. Gareth Peirce, one of Begum's lawyers, stated it is "impossible to dispute" that the teenager was "lured, encouraged and deceived for the purposes of sexual exploitation."
A Case Shrouded in Controversy and Tragedy
Begum, now 26, remains in a Syrian refugee camp, effectively stateless. Her case is marked by personal tragedy, having been "married off" to an IS fighter and losing all three of her children in infancy. The UK government's decision to strip her citizenship was made on national security grounds and was upheld by the Court of Appeal last year.
However, campaigners insist the state failed in its protective duties. Pierce highlighted a "catalogue of failures" to protect a child known to be at high risk, especially after a friend had previously disappeared to Syria. She argued that Javid's 2019 decision was "precipitous" and made without considering the issues of grooming and trafficking.
Political Backlash and National Security Stance
The ECHR's involvement has drawn immediate criticism from UK politicians, particularly from Conservative and Reform party figures. They have accused the court of meddling and renewed calls for the UK to leave the European human rights treaty.
Chris Philp, the Shadow Home Secretary, stated Begum had "no place" in the UK due to her past support for extremists. Richard Tice, Reform UK's deputy leader, was more blunt, writing on X: "ECHR can jog on….none of their business."
The current government maintains a firm stance. A Home Office spokesperson said: "The government will always protect the UK and its citizens. That is why Shamima Begum – who posed a national security threat – had her British citizenship revoked and is unable to return to the UK." They vowed to robustly defend any decision made to protect national security.
This legal communication from the ECHR presents a significant new phase in a case that continues to grapple with profound questions of security, justice, and the UK's obligations to its citizens, even those who have committed to its enemies.
