By Amjad Malik
I acted for 3 of the 10 immigration detainees who were arrested on 8 April s part of a big bungled up operation Pathway. They were considred a threat to national security of the Great Britain when State could not prosecute them on ‘terrorism related offences. Polce instead accepting lack of evidence, handed them over to prime Uk Border gency for deportation and they were being deported on grounds of posing threat to national security of UK as being concerned in islamists extremist activities and for the reason that they were investigated under terrorism Act 2000 since 8 april 2009. Most of them appealed, and later left UK and 2 stayed behind.
Twice bail was refused by SIAC. As a result of first refusal, Tariq ur Rehman decided to leave voluntarily on the offer of SSHD dated 5 June 2009 confirming that ,”If Ur Rehman departs voluntarily, a deportation order will not be made against him. My client also confirms that once Mr. Ur Rehman has left the United Kingdom, the Notice of intention to deport will be formally withdrawn.”Tariq Ur Rehman left UK for Pakistan withdarwing appeal on 10 June 2009. Upon second bail refusal in July 09, Abdul Wahab Khan, and Shoaib Khan decided to leave UK upon SSHD withdrawing NS grounds. Both left UK on 21 August 09. On 18 December Home Office irritated them by repeating that they still pose a threat to UK from pakistan of which they appealed from pakistan. There were reports that their arrests came into being due to a ‘leak document’ of operation and or a tip off from pakistan, the allegation which were vehemently denied by the Pak Govt.Then Prime Minister Gordon Brown claimed to have foiled a plot of international terrorists on the eve of 8 April 2009, and media highlighted that claim. Pakistani high ups in a tit for tat exchange contested those claims, and declared it a ‘hoax’ and considered those arrested as ‘innocent’. Pakistan refused to give any assurances and in fact, vowed to investigate if any wrong doing at British level is proved and or brought to surface.
Central point to the case was an email dated 3 April 2009 which is in public domain and Lord Carlyle’s an independent reviewer referred in his report on (Operation pathway) at paragraph 2.1 as following:“21. The email read: Hi Buddy I am sure my email will find you in good health and all your family members are enjoying them self. I am doing well as usual and having good time. The weather is getting warmer here and we have loads of things to enjoy. You know how is it over here when its summer. People out to the beaches and going on holidays. Well we had some short trips to riverside as well. My mates are well and yes my affair with Nadia is soon turning in to family life. I met with Nadia family and we both parties have agreed to conduct the Nikkah after 15th and before 20th of this month. I have confirmed the dates from them and they said you should be ready between these dates. I am delighted that they have strong family values and we will have many guests attending the party. I am sure Nadia was the right choice for me at this time because I was getting older day by day LOL. Anyways I wished you could be here as well to enjoy the party. That’s all from here, nothing new to write down. Pay my love to Hassan and regards to all your family members. Thanks Kind regards.”The word Nikkah refers to an Islamic ceremony, compatible with a wedding, although not necessarily involving a civil marriage ceremony”.
This email was sent on 3 April 2009 from humaonion@yahoo.com at the time of
16:19:23 (Abid Naseer) to (Pakistani contact Suhaib) at sana_pakhtana@yahoo.com.
There was an allegation that this email is a coded message. The ‘nikah’, the name of
the bride and the date is allegedly a message for an explosive activity in UK. Though
appellants denied any wrong doing and the girl has given evidence in court
confirming her identity, proposed marriage, and contact with the name (Abid
Naseer). Specialist Tribunal was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt – that the user
of the sana_pakhtana account (Suhaib) was an Al Qaeda associate. How they reach
to that conclusion we did not or would not know.
Tribunal headed by a Senior High Court Judge Mr. Mitting rejected Naseer’s
explanation about those emails and held that they are sure that that email conveyed
a sinister and alarming message to an Al Qaeda associate. They were satisfied that
Naseer was an Al Qaeda operative who posed and still poses a serious threat to the national
security of the United Kingdom.What threat, if any, posed to national security by the others was
dependent upon whether or not they were knowing parties to Naseer’s declared intention and tribunal
held that they are satisfied, on balance of probabilities, that Wahab was a committed Islamist
extremist and that he and Rehman were knowing participants in Naseer’s plans and they held that
Faraz’s case is, in principle, indistinguishable from Wahab’s. How they reached to that conclusion
was mostly hidden in the form of a closed judgement which will never see a day light. Thus the
appeals of Wahab and Rehman were dismissed. As there was a risk of torture, tribunal allowed the
appeal of Naseer’s on the issue of safety on Return and gave the same benefit to Faraz as they can
not be sent back to Pakistan in the absence of assurances in writing that they will not be tortured
whilst investigating.
Only one, Shoaib Khan was considered innocent. He won his appeal on the basis
that he hardly knew Naseer. Tribunal held that Shoaib is in a different position. He is from a
settled area of Pakistan, not the troubled North West. He did not know any of the
other four appellants before he arrived in the United Kingdom in 2005. He does not
speak their first language. They further held that Even if they were to adopt a less
stringent test, they would not have determined that it is conducive to the public good
for reasons of national security that he should be excluded from the United Kingdom.
thus they accordingly allowed his appeal
I vehemently argued that one email sender was in UK and the other sender /recipient in Pakistan, so both countries, its executive, and its intelligence community hold half of the picture of this case. Mail on Line in their story dated 11 April 2009 titled, ‘revealed: Terror suspects in ‘Easter bomb plot’ worked at Manchester airport commented that , “ the alleged links to Mumbai terror cell emerged from Pakistani intelligence sources, who claim to have supplied some of the suspect’s names to Britain in the first place.” Same concern were raised at a Oxford conference on 27 February 2010 on student case by Sajjad Karim, a member of the European Parliament too who represent the Northwest of England and issues where Minister political Mr. Zakaria of the High Commission was present, that these arrests may have been made on Pakistani tip off, which has so far been denied by Pak authorities.
To me, the judge on the day has done as best he could on the basis of available evidence though that whole process may not meet the norms of fairness under Article 6 of European Convention on Human Rights as the appellant does not know the crux of allegations and does not see the evidence against him which remains mostly in secret. The Judge had no choice but to accept what was offered to him. In the absence of any view from other side. However, I have no hesitation to say that Pakistan after claiming that these boys are innocent, failed to fight its corner. Those 10 students lost their studies, careers, and livelihood and will carry the blame for the rest of their lives. Whether they were innocent or not, who will believe them once a judgement is declared against those appealed. Lucky for Shoaib Khan who got through, but march on the road to justice is still on.
Barrister Amjad Malik is a chair of Association of Pakistani lawyers (UK)
18 May 2010
