UK secretly relocated thousands of Afghans after data leak, documents reveal
The breach occurred in February 2022, when a defence official mistakenly sent a file containing personal information on nearly 19,000 Afghans who had applied to the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap).
The file, which had over 33,000 rows of data, included names, contact details, and information on applicants' family members. The MoD did not detect the breach until August 2023, when part of the data was published on Facebook.
In April 2024, the government created a confidential scheme called the Afghanistan Response Route. Defence Secretary John Healey told Reuters that 'around 4,500 affected people are in Britain or in transit' and that the scheme had cost about £400 million so far.
Court documents reveal that up to 20,000 people may need relocation, pushing the total cost into the billions once legal expenses and compensation are included.
The government kept the operation secret under a superinjunction — a court order which banned any mention of the case. MoD lawyers told the court there was a 'very real risk that people who would otherwise live will die' if the Taliban became aware of the leak, as reported by The Independent.
A government-commissioned review, led by retired civil servant Paul Rimmer, found that while Afghanistan remains dangerous, the Taliban are likely to already possess similar information. 'It is unlikely the dataset would be the single, or definitive, piece of information enabling or prompting the Taliban to act,' the review stated. It also said the secrecy and creation of a bespoke scheme may have 'inadvertently added more value to the dataset.'
The superinjunction, one of the longest of its kind, was lifted on 4 July 2025 after the MoD agreed it was no longer necessary.
As of May 2025, about 16,000 people affected by the breach had been relocated to the UK. This includes many who were ineligible under the original Arap scheme but were assessed as being at risk. In total, around 36,000 people have been relocated under Arap and related schemes since 2021.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer, whose government took office in July, told Reuters, 'This should never have happened. We owe a duty of care to those who helped British forces, and this breach has put lives at risk. Our priority now is to bring them to safety and ensure full accountability.'
The government is also preparing for hundreds of legal claims. A planned compensation scheme is expected to cost between £120 million and £350 million, excluding administrative costs.
While earlier documents suggested the Afghanistan Response Route could help up to 25,000 people over five more years at a projected cost of £7 billion a recent review said the scale of the scheme may be 'disproportionate' to the actual threat posed by the data exposure.
The Arap scheme, launched in April 2021, closed to new applicants earlier this month following changes in immigration rules.
(with inputs from Reuters and The Independent)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
28 minutes ago
- First Post
History Today: When the Gulf War began with Iraq's invasion of Kuwait
Iraqi forces invaded its neighbouring country, Kuwait, on August 2, 1990, marking the beginning of the Gulf War in West Asia. Saddam Hussein justified the invasion by accusing Kuwait of stealing oil from Iraq's oil fields. On this day, Adolf Hitler officially became the dictator of Nazi Germany, hours after the death of President Paul von Hindenburg read more Kuwaiti citizens walk south along the Basra highway heading back to Kuwait following the end of the Gulf War, past a burning Iraqi APC. File image/Reuters It was in the early hours of August 2, 1990, that Iraqi forces led by President Saddam Hussein launched a massive military invasion of neighbouring Kuwait. This marked the beginning of the Gulf War. If you are a history geek who loves to learn about important events from the past, Firstpost Explainers' ongoing series, History Today, will be your one-stop destination to explore key events. On this day in 1858, the Government of India Act 1858 was formally signed into law by the British Parliament. Meanwhile, Adolf Hitler consolidated absolute dictatorial authority over Germany. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Here is all that has taken place on this day. The invasion of Kuwait began At 2 am on August 2 1990, Iraqi forces launched a full-scale invasion of their oil-rich neighbour, Kuwait. This marked the beginning of the Persian Gulf War and profoundly reshaped the geopolitics of West Asia. Iraqi President Saddam Hussein justified the invasion by accusing Kuwait of overproducing oil and stealing oil from Iraq's Rumaila oil field, claims widely dismissed by the international community. Many analysts saw the invasion as a desperate move by Iraq to alleviate its crushing $80 billion debt from the Iran-Iraq war and to gain control of Kuwait's vast oil reserves, which would give Iraq nearly 20 per cent of the world's known oil supply. Iraqi soldiers ride on top of one of their tanks through the streets of Kuwait City on August 4, 1990. File image/AP The United Nations condemned the invasion, demanding Iraq's immediate withdrawal. The United States, the United Kingdom, and other nations began moving troops into the region in a buildup known as Operation Desert Shield, aimed at protecting Saudi Arabia and preparing for possible military intervention. Over the next few months, diplomatic efforts failed to persuade Saddam to withdraw. On January 17, 1991, a US-led coalition launched Operation Desert Storm, a full-scale military campaign to liberate Kuwait. The invasion of Kuwait set off the Gulf War, redrew geopolitical alliances, and permanently altered the West Asia's power dynamics. It also marked the beginning of a long period of US military involvement in the region. Government of India Act signed The Government of India Act 1858 was formally signed into law by the British Parliament on August 2, 1858, effectively abolishing the rule of the East India Company, thus transferring direct administrative control of India to the British Crown. The Act was a direct response to the Indian Rebellion of 1857 (also known as the Sepoy Mutiny), which exposed the fundamental flaws and widespread discontent under the Company's governance. The British government realised that the existing system was unsustainable and that direct control was necessary to maintain stability and consolidate its power. Under the Act, the East India Company's charter was revoked, and all its territories, armies, treaties, and administrative responsibilities were handed over to the British government. The Act created the new position of Secretary of State for India, a Cabinet-level role with complete authority over Indian affairs, assisted by a 15-member Council of India based in London. In India, the Governor-General was redesignated as the Viceroy, who acted as the direct representative of the British monarch. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Hitler became dictator Adolf Hitler officially became the dictator of Nazi Germany on August 2, 1934, hours after the death of President Paul von Hindenburg. By merging the roles of Chancellor and President, Hitler assumed the title of Fuhrer and Reich Chancellor, giving himself absolute control over the German state and military. Hitler's plans of becoming a dictator unfolded in steps and versions. After being appointed Chancellor on January 30, 1933, Hitler quickly worked to dismantle the Weimar Republic's democratic structures. The Reichstag Fire in February 1933 gave him a pretext to pass the Reichstag Fire Decree, suspending civil liberties and enabling the arrest of political opponents. The Enabling Act followed in March 1933, granting Hitler the power to enact laws without parliamentary approval. An oil painting of Adolf Hitler from 1937. Wikimedia Commons Following the death of Hindenburg, Hitler wasted no time and established a new law to combine the presidency with the chancellorship. The military was then required to swear an oath of personal loyalty to Hitler, not to the German constitution. This act symbolised the complete submission of state institutions to Hitler's will. A national plebiscite was held on August 19, where Germans were asked to approve Hitler's new powers. Though the vote was neither free nor fair, Nazi propaganda claimed that nearly 90 per cent of voters supported Hitler as Fuhrer. With no constitutional limits, no independent judiciary, and no political opposition, Hitler's dictatorship was complete. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD This Day, That Year On this day in 1943, a US Navy torpedo boat under John F Kennedy's command, was sunk by a Japanese destroyer during World War II. In 1830, Charles X of France abdicated the throne.
India Today
an hour ago
- India Today
May consider dividends to citizens: Trump on tariff revenue disbursal plans
The day the 25 per cent US tariffs on Indian imports came into effect, President Donald Trump said he might consider extending the "dividends" earned through the levies imposed on America's trade partners to its citizens, news agency Reuters reported on the Trump tariff tirade, while most European Union member countries and the UK were hit with 15 per cent levies, Japan with 10 per cent, and South Korea with just 5 per cent, India saw a 25 per cent blanket rate imposed on its products imported by the US. The US cited exponentially high tariffs by India on American products behind its Trump imposed a 35 per cent duty on many goods from Canada, 50 per cent on Brazil, 39 per cent on Switzerland and 20 per cent on Taiwan. Notably, Trump has signed a new executive order that imposes fresh import tariffs on goods from 69 countries and the European Union, which will come into effect on August per the order, Syria tops the list of highest tariffs at 41 per cent, followed by Laos and Myanmar at 40 per cent, and Iraq and Serbia at 35 per cent. Other countries such as Libya and Algeria will now face a 30 per cent China, against whom Trump once ordered tariffs as high as a whopping 145 per cent, is still negotiating with the US, with American officials saying that they are looking at an imminent trade deal. "But it is not 100 per cent done," US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told CNBC move is part of Trump's push for what he describes as more "fair and reciprocal" trade relationships. The White House said that some countries had failed to meet US expectations during trade talks, leading to these new Trump's tariff move and the deadline, global stock markets witnessed a slump as investors panicked, fearing a global supply chain disruption and the outcome of their talks with who had grown accustomed to Trump's frequent trade threats may now be facing a reality check, as broad tariffs on numerous countries have taken effect just as the deadline to negotiate trade agreements with the US passed without resolution.- EndsTune InMust Watch
Economic Times
an hour ago
- Economic Times
US Supreme Court poised to assess validity of key voting rights law
Reuters FILE: U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Mike Johnson signs the U.S. President Donald Trump's sweeping spending and tax bill, on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., U.S., July 3, 2025. The U.S. Supreme Court signaled on Friday that it will assess the legality of a key component of a landmark federal voting rights law, potentially giving its conservative majority a chance to gut a provision enacted 60 years ago that was intended to prevent racial discrimination in voting. The brief order issued by the court raises the stakes in a case already pending before the justices involving a legal challenge to an electoral map passed by Louisiana's Republican-led legislature that raised the number of Black-majority U.S. congressional districts in the state from one to two. The justices said they will consider whether it violates the U.S. Constitution for states to create additional voting districts with populations that are majority Black, Hispanic or another minority as a way to remedy a judicial finding that a state's voting map likely violates the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The case, due to be heard by the justices in their next term that begins in October, sets the stage for a major ruling expected by the end of June 2026 that could affect the composition of electoral districts around the United States. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority. The dispute strikes at tensions between the Voting Rights Act, passed by Congress during the U.S. civil rights era to bar racial discrimination in voting, and adhering to the constitutional principle of equal protection, which limits the application of race when the borders of electoral districts are redrawn. Boundaries of legislative districts across the country are reconfigured to reflect population changes every decade in a process called redistricting. The court previously heard arguments in the case in March. But in June, the justices declined to issue a ruling and indicated they would invite the parties to address additional questions. Rick Hasen, an election law expert at UCLA, called the stakes enormous, writing in a blog post that the court seems to be asking whether the section of the Voting Rights Act at issue "violates a colorblind understanding of the Constitution." The action follows a major ruling by the court in 2013 in a case involving Alabama's Shelby County that invalidated another core section of the Voting Rights Act that determined which states and locales with a history of racial discrimination need federal approval for voting rule changes affecting Black people and other minorities. "This Court is more conservative than the Court that in 2013 struck down the other main pillar of the Voting Rights Act in the Shelby County case," Hasen wrote. "This is a big, and dangerous, step toward knocking down the second pillar." The matter is being litigated at the Supreme Court at a time when Republican President Donald Trump is taking steps to eliminate programs related to diversity, equity and inclusion that aim to promote opportunities for minorities, women, LGBT people and others. In the Louisiana case, state officials and civil rights groups appealed a lower court's ruling that found the map laying out the state's six U.S. House of Representatives districts - with two Black-majority districts, up from one previously - violated the constitutional promise of equal protection. A group of 12 Louisiana voters identifying themselves in court papers as "non-African American" sued to block the redrawn map. A lawyer for the plaintiffs did not respond to requests to provide the racial breakdown of the plaintiffs. The state and the rights groups are seeking to preserve the map. Black people comprise nearly a third of Louisiana's population. During the first round of arguments in the case in March, lawyers for Louisiana argued that the map was not drawn impermissibly by the legislature with race as the primary motivation, as the lower court found last year. The map's design, the Republican-governed state argued, also sought to protect Republican incumbents including House Speaker Mike Johnson and No. 2 House Republican Steve Scalise, who both represent districts in the state. Black voters tend to support Democratic candidates. Arguments in the case centered on Louisiana's response to U.S. District Judge Shelly Dick's June 2022 finding that an earlier map likely violated the Voting Rights Act and whether the state relied too heavily on race in devising the remedial map. Dick ruled that a map adopted earlier that year by the legislature that had contained only one Black-majority district unlawfully harmed Black voters. Dick ordered the addition of a second Black-majority district. The Supreme Court in 2023 left Dick's ruling in place, and it previously allowed the map at issue in the current case to be used in the 2024 election. A three-judge panel in a 2-1 ruling in April 2024 found that the map relied too heavily on race in the map's design in violation of the equal protection provision. The Constitution's 14th Amendment contains the equal protection language. Ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the American Civil War, the amendment addressed issues relating to the rights of formerly enslaved Black people.
