A British aid worker and his family say they are stuck in Syria after his UK citizenship was revoked and his children have not been issued passports.
Tauqir Sharif, 31, from Walthamstow, who lives and works in Idlib alongside his British wife, Racquell Hayden-Best, had his citizenship revoked in May 2017. He has called on the UK government to review its revocation policy for those engaged in humanitarian work in conflict zones.
Sharif has appealed against the UK government’s decision and has asked for a fair hearing in an open court where evidence against him can be tested by a judge and jury. Sharif claims aid workers and doctors are unfairly judged in the same category as jihadists.
The argument that is usually made in similar deprivation cases against an open hearing is that there is either insufficient evidence to sustain a successful prosecution, or that the evidence is not disclosable in open court as it would compromise intelligence sources however this failure to disclose allegations and evidence makes it difficult for the decision to be challenged. But to be sanctioned without a fair hearing is contrary to due process. The Home Office’s policy is to deprive persons of their citizenship and thereafter defend their decision in the secretive world of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, a judicial body which routinely decides these appeals.
Sharif founded the organisation Live Updates from Syria in 2012, providing support and assistance for families there, and raising awareness about the devastating situation on the ground. He acknowledges there may be an issue of combatants claiming to be aid workers as the war in Syria draws to a close, but says the work done by his wife and himself is well-documented. The Home Office is facing a growing problem of determining the citizenship rights of hundreds of British nationals and, in some cases, their children, who seek to return home from the war in Syria. Work carried out by aid workers and doctors operating in conflict zones can complicate matters significantly, as humanitarian work can blur the rules of engagement.
Sharif insists the British authorities need to take into account the conditions under which those caught up in the conflict live and how aid is seen as a valuable commodity to all sides. Although since his arrival in Syria he has carried a handgun and has used an assault rifle, he claims he is not an Isis sympathiser but has the weapons for self-defence and the protection of his family as it is dangerous to work in conflict zones.
Sharif received a letter which stated that under section 40(5) of the British Nationalities Act 1981, he was to be deprived of his British citizenship as he had been assessed to be “aligned with an al-Qaida-aligned group”. His return to the UK would, it said, present a risk to national security. The information on which the assessment was made was not disclosable due to national security interests but Sharif has demanded a fair and open trial where all evidence can be presented and heard. He argues that he and others like Shamima Begum, the teenager who fled the UK to join Isis, should have the right to a fair trial and characterises the actions of the government as blatantly racist.
His wife, Racquell Hayden-Best is also an aid worker and a teacher but she has not had her citizenship revoked. Hayden-Best could return to the UK, leaving her husband behind, but the legal position of the couple’s children is less certain. Although the children are entitled to UK citizenship by default, Sharif and his wife have been unable to get passports for them due to the lack of a response from the UK government and the difficulty of accessing consular services.
The Home Office has been unwilling to comment on the family’s case, referring instead to the press statement on Shamima Begum.
