UK Hidden Afghan Resettlement Exposed by Super-Injunction \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ UK governments, both past and present, are under fire after revealing that more than 36,000 Afghans were quietly resettled through a confidential program concealed from the media, public, Parliament, and even the relocated individuals themselves. The scandal deepened with the exposure of a massive data leak and the use of a rare “super‑injunction” to suppress the news. Lawyers and MPs are now demanding answers as class‑action lawsuits loom and democracy questions grow louder.
Quick Looks
- 36,000 Afghans resettled in the UK since 2021, many via a hidden program (ARAP).
- A 2022 data leak exposed 19,000 Afghan applicants, prompting government secrecy.
- The UK used a rare super-injunction to block the media and Parliament from reporting the incident.
- Only after Labour took office in 2024 was the gag order lifted and details made public.
- 4,500 evacuees were secretly relocated under ARAP, expected to reach 6,900 before it closes.
- The program’s cost has reached £850 million, sparking questions about oversight and vetting.
- Former Defense Secretary Ben Wallace defended the injunction, saying it was for national security.
- Legal challenges underway: Afghan evacuees may file a class-action lawsuit over the leak.
- Critics, including MPs and press advocates, warn this undermines UK democracy and transparency.
- Defense Secretary John Healey promised full accountability, declaring: “You cannot have democracy with super-injunctions in place.”
Deep Look
In a revelation shaking the foundations of UK democracy, it was recently disclosed that thousands of Afghan allies were quietly resettled in the United Kingdom under a clandestine program shrouded in legal secrecy and hidden even from Parliament. The program — known as the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (ARAP) — was launched following the Taliban’s 2021 return to power. But what followed was a government-led effort to manage its failures behind a super-injunction, a rare and sweeping gag order that blocked the press and lawmakers from exposing what had happened.
This is the full account of how British governments — Conservative and Labour alike — managed a crisis that’s now seen as a test of democratic transparency, rule of law, and ethical governance.
It All Started With a Dangerous Mistake
In February 2022, during the chaotic months following the Western withdrawal from Afghanistan, a UK Ministry of Defence official intended to send a spreadsheet containing about 150 Afghan applicants’ names for resettlement under the ARAP scheme. Instead, they mistakenly sent a list of nearly 19,000 names — all of them Afghans who had worked with British forces, often in roles like interpreters, engineers, and intelligence support.
This catastrophic error exposed individuals and their families to potential Taliban retaliation, especially after some of that data surfaced on Facebook nearly 18 months later. With family members often tied to the names, officials estimated that as many as 100,000 people could be at risk.
Enter the Super-Injunction
Terrified of the fallout, the UK government sought and secured a super-injunction — a rarely used legal tool that not only blocks publication of a story but also prevents anyone from mentioning the injunction’s existence. While commonly used in celebrity privacy disputes, its use by a democratic government was unprecedented.
Former Defence Secretary Ben Wallace justified the decision, saying it gave the government “time and space” to determine whether the Taliban had accessed the list and to protect those at risk.
Wallace claimed he initially requested a standard injunction, not a super-injunction. However, the sweeping secrecy order remained in force for nearly two years — allowing the government to silently operate ARAP, block media reporting, and keep Parliament in the dark.
Who Was Resettled — And At What Cost
Behind closed doors, the British government continued evacuating Afghans from the leaked list. As of mid-2025, more than 4,500 people had been relocated — 900 main applicants and approximately 3,600 family members. The target figure was 6,900 evacuees before the program’s closure, at an estimated cost of £850 million.
In total, 36,000 Afghans have been resettled in the UK since 2021 — a number not disclosed to the public until now.
The Media Fights Back — But Is Gagged
Several British media outlets discovered the story but were barred from publishing any details due to the super-injunction. Their court challenge led to a High Court decision in May 2024 to lift the injunction — but the government appealed, keeping the secrecy intact.
The stalemate persisted until July 2024, when the Labour Party, under Prime Minister Keir Starmer, won the general election and was briefed on the situation. After internal deliberations, Defence Secretary John Healey dropped the appeal and made the program public.
Parliament Finally Learns the Truth
On the day the injunction was lifted, Healey stood in Parliament and formally acknowledged the existence of the secret ARAP resettlement program and the data breach that triggered it.
A government-commissioned review concluded that the Taliban already had various ways to identify former collaborators, and the leak likely did not significantly increase risk. Nonetheless, critics insist that basic principles of transparency, media freedom, and parliamentary oversight were undermined.
Legal, Political, and Ethical Fallout Begins
Now, the fallout is growing:
- Lawyers representing Afghans on the leaked list are preparing a class-action lawsuit over the failure to inform them of the breach.
- MPs across party lines have condemned the government’s handling of the scandal.
- Press freedom groups are demanding a review of how and when super-injunctions can be used in the public interest.
Adnan Malik, head of data privacy at Barings Law, said: “Hundreds of Afghans were unknowingly placed in danger. Many are now in hiding. We believe the government failed a moral and legal duty.”
Meanwhile, immigration hardliners like Nigel Farage have called for an inquiry into who was resettled and how the program operated without public or parliamentary scrutiny.
A National Reckoning Over Accountability
This secret program now symbolizes a deeper reckoning over how democratic societies balance security, secrecy, and accountability. Critics argue that a functional democracy must allow for mistakes to be scrutinized, not buried under a veil of silence.
Judge Martin Chamberlain, in lifting the injunction, stated clearly:
“This injunction had the effect of completely shutting down the ordinary mechanisms of accountability.”
And Defence Secretary Healey, acknowledging the magnitude of what had occurred, added:
“You cannot have democracy with super-injunctions in place.”
The legal cases, the policy reviews, and the political debates are just beginning — but the lesson for the British government is clear: true national security cannot come at the cost of democratic integrity.
UK Hidden Afghan
You must Register or Login to post a comment.