In 2022, somebody in the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) mistakenly shared a spreadsheet containing the personal information associated with 18,714 Afghans and their family members. This data breach, and the efforts to cover it up, raises serious questions about state secrecy, blame-shifting and accountability.
After discovering the mistake in August 2023, the government covered up their spectacular error with an unprecedented injunction “contra mundum” (against the world). This “superinjunction” prohibited journalists and others in the know – like one author of this article (Professor Sara de Jong) – from reporting the breach and even the very existence of the injunction.
When the superinjunction was finally lifted on July 15, John Healey, the defence secretary, revealed that the MoD had operated a secret resettlement scheme for Afghans whose data had been leaked at risk from the Taliban. To date, 900 Afghans and 3,600 family members have been flown to Britain or are currently in transit via this scheme. A further 600 people and their immediate family members are still in Afghanistan, being promised evacuation. Many thousands of others on the list were already resettled in the UK via two other official routes.
The spectacular nature and impact of this data leak should not distract from the fact that it is not entirely unique. The personal data of Afghan applicants had already been exposed by the MoD in an earlier series of data breaches in September 2021.
The superinjunction is only the latest in a string of silences that have prevented accountability on Afghanistan and other issues to do with national security.
Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.
Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.
In the wake of the dramatic Nato withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021, the foreign affairs select committee was dependent on whistleblowers to get to the truth about then prime minister Boris Johnson’s prioritisation of an animal charity for evacuation, over others at acute risk. Political accountability over the chaos of the evacuation was compromised by the foreign office who, according to then committee chair Tom Tugendhat, “repeatedly has given us answers that, in our judgement, are at best intentionally evasive, and often deliberately misleading”.
The Ministry of Defence – including Healey in his statement on the data breach – routinely cites the deaths of 457 British soldiers as the “costs of war” in Afghanistan. But the department only released the data on how many Afghan interpreters died alongside them after a freedom of information request by Sara de Jong. The MoD, even after several freedom of information Requests and appeals, refuses to provide further details about the circumstances of their deaths.
Even the latest shocking revelations didn’t end with the lifting of the superinjunction. A secondary injunction was lifted on July 17, revealing that the leaked list also contained the identities of dozens of British officials, including spies and special forces.
Selective secrecy
In the wider context of government leaks and secrecy, critical questions need to be asked about which secrets are kept, by whom and why.
In his judgement lifting the superinjunction, Mr Justice Chamberlain credited media organisations and individual journalists involved with the fact that they had kept the leak confidential. Like Sara, some had become aware of the breach several months before Healey (the then-shadow defence secretary was informed in December 2023). But all kept quiet to keep Afghans at risk safe, not to cover up their own errors.
The government invests in secrecy when it also has its own embarrassment to hide, whether it is an extraordinary superinjunction or secrecy about the prioritisation of a pet charity during the Afghanistan evacuation.
Appeals to national security routinely obstruct media, legal and public access to information to hold the government to account. Meanwhile, many Afghans are left wondering why their and their loved ones’ data was on a spreadsheet that could be emailed around with a click of the wrong button.
Effects on Afghans
The consequences of the cover-up will be felt most acutely by Afghans – those on the leaked list still waiting for evacuation, including family members of Afghans already in the UK, whose own presence may be complicated further by anti-immigration sentiment.
Following the revelations, Healey announced that the secret relocation scheme was now closed, following the sudden decision to close the two official Afghan resettlement schemes.
The decision to shut down the two publicly known resettlement schemes, he claimed, was based on “policy concerns about proportionality, public accountability, cost and fairness”, as well as a commissioned report on the impact of the leak.
He defended his decisions saying that “the taxpayer should be paying £1.2 billion less over the next few years, and that around 9,500 fewer Afghans will come to this country”. In the context of ongoing anti-immigration rhetoric, the mention of costs combined with refugees is as unsurprising as it is inflammatory.
On the day of announcement, affected Afghans were sent a notice by the MoD and a link where they could find out if their data had been compromised. The email said very little about what the MoD could offer, and said a lot about what measures Afghans were now supposed to take: use a virtual private network, limit who can see your social media profiles.
Afghans unlucky enough to be Afghanistan were simply advised that, “If you are outside the UK, please do not try to travel to a third country without a valid passport and visa. If you do so, you will be putting yourself at risk on the journey, and you may face the risk of being deported back to Afghanistan”.
It is almost impossible for Afghans to travel legally without international assistance. And, since the Taliban are not recognised as a legitimate government, embassies are closed for citizens to even obtain legal travel documentation.
Given that the British government recognises the real risk of rights violations in Afghanistan, as well as the ongoing assault on women’s rights by the Taliban, it seems contradictory – and a remarkable abdication of responsibility – to close routes to safety.
Victoria Canning has received funding from UKRI and British Academy.
Sara de Jong has received funding from the British Academy (Mid-Career Fellowship 2022) for research on Afghan interpreters and their claims to protection and rights. She is the chair of the board of trustees of the Sulha Alliance CIO, which advocates for and supports Afghan interpreters employed by the British Army.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
