Does removing Isis members’ British citizenship really make the UK safer?

Analysis: A government-commissioned report warned it could be an ‘ineffective and counter-productive weapon against terrorism’, Lizzie Dearden writes

Jack Letts, seen here in Isis-controlled Tabqa in 2016, denies he ever joined or fought on behalf of the militant organisation

The government’s decision to strip Jack Letts of his British citizenship has reignited questions over its justification for using the controversial power.

The Home Office said the move “is one way we can counter the terrorist threat posed by some of the most dangerous individuals and keep our country safe”.

But the foundation for that claim remains unclear. A report commissioned by the government itself warned that citizenship removal may be an “ineffective and counter-productive weapon against terrorism”.

The 2016 research found that the measure left jihadis free to continue terrorist activities abroad, prevented monitoring and encouraged the “dangerous delusion that terrorism can be made into a foreign problem”.

An inspection by the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration in 2017 concluded: “The effectiveness of [citizenship removal] in protecting the UK from national security threats is hard to assess.”

It is unclear whether any attempt has ever been made to monitor extremists who are deprived of British citizenship, and the processes used by ministers and intelligence agencies are cloaked in secrecy.

The government has been heavily criticised for allowing the return of more than 400 jihadis from Syria since 2014, and knows the fear and condemnation that would accompany the return of a high-profile Isis member like “Jihadi Jack”.

Both prosecution and security service monitoring would require substantial resources, at a time when a record number of terror investigations are already underway.

But as the head of UK counterterror police has admitted, the assumption that returning foreign fighters pose the greatest threat to Britain is wrong.

None of the four fatal terror attacks launched in London and Manchester in 2017 were carried out by returnees from Iraq and Syria, and several plots have been mounted by Isis supporters prevented from leaving the UK.

“The threat was already here – and there are still plenty of aspirant or frustrated travellers who now have nowhere to go,” said Metropolitan Police assistant commissioner Neil Basu.

The government has not disclosed the public safety case for removing Letts’ British nationality and leaving him a Canadian citizen, sparking a diplomatic row with Ottawa.

Home Office statistics show that the power was used only a handful of times a year, until deprivations rocketed from 14 people in 2016 to 104 in 2017.

Figures showing that only one in 10 jihadis returning from Syria have been successfully prosecuted may provide a clue to the government’s thinking.

But Letts, like Shamima Begum, has conducted media interviews where he admitted joining Isis and formerly supporting the group’s terror attacks in Europe.

That is ample material for a prosecution under UK terror laws, either for joining a banned organisation or for encouraging terrorism.

The recovery of any electronic devices would probably yield additional evidence of offences including the collection and dissemination of terrorist propaganda.

Rather than being forced to take exceptional measures to protect the public, the government is in danger of appearing to be washing its hands of homemade jihadis who could be brought to justice in British courts.

The decision to remove Begum’s citizenship is already facing legal challenge and as more cases emerge, the government may yet have to prove its assertions.