The Tribune

One particular decision of Britain’s Supreme Court caught my eye last week. This was its unanimous ruling in the case of a so-called ISIS bride - who as a British citizen had voluntarily travelled to Syria to join this terrorist group - to deny her the right to return home to fight her loss of citizenship that had earlier been revoked. Such a ruling raises questions about a possible change in the attitudes of the courts to human rights issues together with a pointer towards the judiciary’s reluctance to be drawn into political issues, particularly matters of national security.

The 12-member Supreme Court, created in 2009 to replace the Law Lords in Parliament, is the nation’s final court of appeal in cases of major public importance. Traditionally, judges in Britain have been seen as a bastion of the establishment and of conservatism. But, more recently, some have come under public attack for being too liberal. Seen as Left-leaning, they have been accused of being more concerned with protecting the human rights of potential as well as hardened criminals - and blocking the deportation of illegal or convicted immigrant offenders - than recognising the values and rights of the general public and the good of society as a whole. It is this which has caused public concern rather than, as has been suggested, the courts wanting to meddle in politics - and some say it may have been brought about by judges’ varied interpretation of the UK’s Human Rights Act of 1998 which incorporated into domestic law the rights and liberties enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights.

Critics of the judiciary should nonetheless surely be reassured by the wise words in 2004 of Britain’s former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham, that the function of independent judges charged to interpret and apply the law is universally recognised as a cardinal feature of the modern democratic state and a cornerstone of the rule of law itself - and, in such circumstances, the public should trust their integrity, objectivity and impartiality.

The facts of the current case are clear. In 2015, a 15-year-old schoolgirl named Shamima Begum apparently tricked her parents into thinking she was going on holiday and left the UK for war-torn Syria to join ISIS. It was later considered likely she witnessed - and may even have participated in - the most appalling atrocities carried out by ISIS and had committed a crime by signing up to a barbaric death cult.

In 2019, Ms Begum was stripped of her British citizenship and, on the grounds of national security, was denied the right to return to the UK. After marriage and the loss of her babies to starvation and pneumonia, she is now in a refugee camp. She claims she was brainwashed and indoctrinated as a vulnerable teenager and wants to return home to face British justice.

The UK government has declared she will not be allowed back into the country because she represents a danger to others on account of her radical beliefs. However, in July last year the Court of Appeal ruled that she should be permitted to return in order to pursue her appeal against her loss of citizenship. Now, the Supreme Court has overruled that decision, stating that the right to a fair hearing over her citizenship does not trump all other considerations, such as the safety of the public, and the lower court had made no assessment of the national security issue since it had not considered any relevant evidence.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court declared the Home Secretary was responsible for the safety and security of the country’s citizens and borders and should have the power to decide whether anyone posing a security threat could enter the country.

In response, the Home Office has welcomed the Supreme Court’s reaffirmation of the government’s authority to make vital national security decisions and that the courts should not interfere with this since determinations to deprive individuals of their citizenship were not taken lightly. But human rights activists have condemned the ruling for, in effect, allowing a democratic government to remove the right to a fair trial and possibly ensuring that in the Begum case a nationality deprivation order could remain unchallenged indefinitely. Moreover, many other Britons who joined ISIS have returned to face prosecution so, the critics say, why not Shamima Begum as well.

This case has brought into focus once again the fact that in a parliamentary democracy it is Parliament itself which is the supreme body because it is chosen by the people. Judicial review is important in order to test the constitutionality of any policy and to attempt to restrain the excesses of political leaders. But, under the UK’s doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, the Supreme Court cannot, for example, overturn primary legislation.

In the case of returnees from Syria, it is surely right that the judiciary should not challenge the executive branch on decisions relating to national security since it is the executive which is empowered by Parliament - and is accountable to it - to ensure the country’s safety and security. These are important issues in a parliamentary democracy that are worth airing for they might be of interest to other countries with the same systems - including, perhaps, to us here in The Bahamas.

Myanmar’s future grows ever darker

The latest alarming developments in Myanmar, including the appearance in court on Monday of Aung San Suu Kyi, the de facto leader of the nation, encourages me to offer comment on this important international issue again after writing about it only two weeks ago.

Judging from reports, a month on from the military coup there is growing international disquiet about the widespread deteriorating situation after last weekend’s deadliest clashes since the crisis began. The UN reported on Sunday that the country looked like a battlefield, with 18 people dead and many wounded as security forces fired live bullets, stun grenades and tear gas at anti-coup protesters.

Reportedly, there are now fears that this lethal force by the military will intensify as the protesters remain vociferously defiant and show no sign of backing down.

Myanmar has been ruled since 1962 by an oppressive military junta with a reputation for brutal suppression of dissent – as well as atrocities against minorities like the Rohingya Muslims -- so it seems unlikely the generals will now listen to fresh international condemnation. Nor will they listen to their own ambassador to the UN who was dismissed after calling for international action to restore democracy. Nonetheless, other countries – led by the UK, the US and Canada amongst others - have criticised the coup in forceful terms and, most recently, the UN Secretary General has strongly condemned the actions of the military saying it must respect the will of the people.

No one dare predict how this situation may develop. But brutal dominance of a country in this way by its own military forces, and denial of the democratic freedoms that the people voted for, will continue to cause outrage in the international community. The experts say that the way in which Aung San Suu Kyi is now treated will be hugely important in determining the eventual outcome. Already under house arrest and facing trumped up charges of illegally importing walkie-talkies, she was apparently due to face further charges – including inciting public unrest and breaking virus rules - when she appeared in court yesterday. At the time of writing, the outcome of this court hearing is unknown, but many worry that the junta will want to keep her in some sort of custody and out of public view.

IT’S NOT ALL DRINKS ON THE EMBASSY LAWN

Diplomacy was traditionally defined as international dialogue and negotiations conducted by accredited envoys with a view to influencing the policies of foreign governments or organisations through non-violent means. Historically, such envoys in far-off lands had considerable authority, power and influence. But modern communications altered all that when reports and information, together with advice and instructions, could be transmitted instantaneously at the press of a button - and this changed the nature of the work and increased its tempo, thereby placing greater demands on all concerned.

The core function is to conduct the business of government across-the-board with the country to which you are accredited. It requires hard work and commitment, flexibility and sometimes being kept busy all hours of the day or night. The career appears glamorous with a privileged lifestyle, the prospect of world travel to exotic places and involvement in significant events in the international arena. But the reality is somewhat more prosaic. It may mean living in difficult environments with harsh living conditions - and it can be challenging and even dangerous, depending on where one is sent.

Last week, I found myself reflecting on all this after reading of the murder of the current Italian ambassador to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The details were sketchy but it appears he was gunned down by an unknown armed group while on a visit to an aid project in a remote area.

This brought back memories of British diplomatic service colleagues who have lost their lives violently while serving overseas. Sad to say, over the years there have been many assassinations of ambassadors and high commissioners as well as of more junior officers. To mention just a few, our High Commissioner in Kuala Lumpur was shot dead by communist insurgents at the height of the Malayan Emergency in 1951. During the course of the Irish Republican Army’s murderous campaign against Britain in the 1970s and 1980s - including bombings in London and the unsuccessful attack on the then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in the Brighton bombing of 1984 - our ambassadors in Dublin and The Hague were both targeted and killed. Closer to home, the Governor of Bermuda was murdered in 1973 when strolling in the garden of Government House one night after dinner.

At a personal and obviously much less severe level, I recall several potentially life-threatening incidents while on two separate postings in Nigeria.

When I was serving as deputy high commissioner many years ago in the sprawling populous city of Ibadan (upcountry from the then-capital of Lagos), a gang of students from the local university - upset about Britain’s failure to end white minority rule in Rhodesia - invaded my office and adjoining residence and tried to set fire to the building but were eventually seen off by the local police. Then, in the 1990s, my wife and I were in a small group from Lagos on an expedition to the Sahara which was attacked when passing through a village in the former French colony of Niger. Since we had a Land Rover, we managed to escape by driving off into the bush despite a few of our assailants clinging to the vehicle and hacking at it with machetes - happily, the whole group survived. A year later, some British Members of Parliament came to Nigeria to monitor a presidential election on behalf of the Commonwealth. At one point, we were threatened by a hostile group which suddenly surrounded us and demanded to know why we were “interfering“ in the country’s election. Managing to get my charges back into our vehicles without being assaulted, we beat a hasty retreat - and this was to my great relief, since to lose an MP in the African bush could lead to the abrupt ending of a diplomatic career!

These, of course, rank as no more than minor skirmishes compared with the nasty experiences of some colleagues in other parts of the world. The dangers undoubtedly exist; particularly, of course, if one is serving in a war zone. But, in my own experience, life-threatening incidents are relatively rare. Meanwhile, there can be enormous satisfaction in sometimes successfully fulfilling the task of promoting and protecting British interests overseas - and not least when helping one’s fellow Brits in distress and sorting out their problems.