Shamima Begum, the British-born woman who traveled to Syria as a teenager to join the Islamic State (IS), remains a focal point in debates about citizenship and national security. Begum, now 25, has spent over five years in a detention camp in northeastern Syria, where her repeated legal attempts to return to the UK have been denied on national security grounds.
In 2019, the UK government revoked Begum’s citizenship, a decision upheld by the Supreme Court this year. Begum’s case has been controversial, particularly given her claims that she was groomed and coerced as a minor before leaving the UK. Lord Hermer KC, now the Attorney General, previously argued in her defense during earlier legal proceedings, describing citizenship deprivation as an “extremely draconian power.”
Lord Hermer, who represented Liberty, a human rights group, emphasized that Begum’s inability to participate in her appeal due to her detention in Syria undermined her right to a fair trial. He also highlighted the broader implications of citizenship revocation, including the potential exposure of individuals to severe risks such as “rendition and targeted drone strikes.”
Between 2013 and 2018, more than 100 British women reportedly traveled to ISIS-controlled territories, many under coercive circumstances. Legal arguments have pointed to the complexities of such cases, particularly for individuals who were minors at the time of recruitment.
Critics of the UK government’s stance argue that the increase in citizenship revocations—104 cases in 2017 alone—reflects a growing reliance on this power, sometimes at the expense of due process. Begum’s legal representatives continue to advocate for her right to meaningful participation in appeals, particularly as new human rights arguments may arise if her detention camp is shut down.
While some, including Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer, have criticized the initial decision to revoke Begum’s citizenship, he has since expressed support for the court’s conclusion to uphold it. Meanwhile, the political implications of the case remain significant, with Lord Hermer’s earlier involvement as Begum’s legal representative drawing attention during Prime Minister’s Questions.
The case continues to raise critical questions about the balance between national security and individual rights, particularly for those who were minors when recruited into extremist groups. As the debate evolves, it highlights the need for nuanced and consistent legal frameworks to address such complex cases.
