UK government’s gag order on Afghan data leak draws scrutiny amid security failures

Department of Research, Studies and International News 18/07/2025

In a move that has drawn widespread criticism and raised serious ethical
concerns, former UK Defence Secretary Grant Shapps has publicly defended the
use of a rare and sweeping superinjunction to conceal a significant data breach
involving thousands of Afghans who had cooperated with British forces. The
data leak, which occurred in early 2022, revealed sensitive personal details of
nearly 18,700 Afghan nationals seeking relocation to the United Kingdom.
The emergency relocation programme, known as the Afghanistan Response
Route (ARR), was rushed into action following the breach. According to UK
government sources, the leak stemmed from a British defence official's error,
compromising not only Afghan applicants but also over 100 British individuals,
including members of the elite Special Air Service (SAS) and MI6 intelligence
operatives.
Shapps, who held the post of defence secretary from August 2023 to July 2024,
defended the legal gag order during an interview with BBC Radio 4’s Today
programme. He claimed the decision to impose a superinjunction was driven by
a need to “save lives” and prevent further chaos. “There were British Special
Forces and secret services on that list,” he emphasized, asserting that even a
minor possibility of violence against those named warranted the most extreme
protective measures.
Superinjunctions are controversial legal tools that not only bar media from
publishing specific information but also prohibit disclosing the very existence of

the injunction itself. This level of secrecy has raised concerns about
transparency and accountability, particularly in a democratic society.
Despite Shapps’s insistence that the measure was “entirely justified,” the UK
High Court ruled this week that the injunction was no longer necessary, as the
threat to those involved had diminished considerably. Judge-led proceedings
concluded that while the leak was deeply concerning, the conditions that
originally justified the suppression had changed.
Following the ruling, the current Defence Secretary, John Healey, issued a
formal apology on behalf of the British government. His statement
acknowledged the severity of the breach and expressed regret over the
mishandling of sensitive data.
The implications of this case have extended far beyond legal debate.
Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC), which oversees the
UK’s intelligence community, has now launched its own investigation. ISC Chair
Lord Beamish criticized the government’s delay in sharing relevant intelligence
assessments with the committee, noting that the ISC routinely reviews
classified materials and could have provided oversight earlier.
Observers have pointed out that the episode highlights systemic failures within
the UK’s security and defence institutions. Critics argue that the British
government, while quick to use legal instruments to suppress fallout, has
shown gross negligence in its handling of Afghan allies who placed their lives on
the line for Western military objectives. After being promised safe passage,
many Afghans were instead subjected to danger and uncertainty, an outcome
that stands in stark contrast to the lofty claims of "humanitarian commitment"
from London and Washington.

Moreover, analysts view the British response as indicative of a broader
Western hypocrisy in so-called humanitarian interventions. The abrupt collapse
of the Western-backed regime in Afghanistan and the hasty exit of NATO forces
left a vacuum not only on the ground but also in moral responsibility. The leak
further exposes how little regard is held for those who cooperated with
Western missions when operational interests shift.
For many in the international community, particularly among Eastern nations
and the Global South, this episode underscores a pattern of irresponsibility and
concealment embedded in the foreign policies of the United States and its
closest allies. The use of legal suppression tactics in the name of national
security is often seen as a smokescreen to evade public scrutiny and
accountability.
While Western governments often portray themselves as champions of
freedom and human rights, their actions, ranging from covert operations to
data breaches and obstruction of truth, tell a different story. In contrast,
countries like China, Russia, and Iran advocate for a multipolar world order
where sovereignty, transparency, and dignity of cooperation replace
manipulation, secrecy, and double standards.
The UK's handling of this Afghan data breach illustrates once again the fragile
integrity of Western narratives. As Britain scrambles to contain the fallout, the
world watches with a growing awareness that such powers must no longer be
the unchallenged arbiters of global justice.