Sajid Javid’s selfish ambition eclipsed his judgement – and now Shamima Begum has the moral high ground

He wants to defend national security and impress a public understandably appalled by Begum. Yet she may be a larger threat to western security as a stateless figure at large

Let there be no doubt: the decision by the home secretary to render Shamima Begum virtually stateless is, first and foremost, deeply political.

In reality, it has nothing to do with national security, and everything to do with Sajid Javid’s ambition. He wants to be tough and seen to be tough. Ms Begum, already demonised, is too tempting a target to ignore.

She is hardly the first. Over the years a surprising number of British citizens have had their passports cancelled. The government’s use of its controversial powers to deprive British citizenship has risen from 14 people in 2016 to 104 in 2017.

The usual justification – there is no breakdown of reasons – is that the individual concerned poses a threat to the public.

That may or may not be true – but it should be tested in a court of law rather than by the often politically-driven motives of a politician.

We should also reflect on what will happen if more countries follow this British example and cancel the citizenship of the multinational jihadi force now being rounded up in Syria and Iraq.

They will be left to their own devices, their ideology intact and the numerous instincts undiminished. That is a much more potent threat to the west.

It was, after all, that kind of neglect that gave rise to the Taliban in Afghanistan, 9/11 and all that has followed since. “Out of sight, out of mind” is not a useful motto for preserving national security.

Mr Javid's aggressive, impetuous actions will rebound badly on him. His decision in the Begum case has such weak legal standing that it will probably be overturned on appeal.

Unfashionable as it may be to point out, even Ms Begum is entitled to exercise her human rights, and having her British citizenship revoked summarily by executive order is not consistent with those rights nor, very likely, with the law, national and international.

There is also the matter of her days-old son, automatically a British citizen by descent. Not even Mr Javid can claim he is a security risk. His fate is utterly uncertain. There is nothing brave or tough about tackling an infant.

Ms Begum, no poster girl for liberal values, is a difficult case, and it demanded a more considered decision. Mr Javid's rush to quasi-legal judgement suggests a certain amount of panic, that she might turn up at Heathrow at any moment, with a predictable media storm resulting.

So he is in a rush to simply ban her from Britain, and ask questions afterwards.

Mr Javid’s decision is unjust and, perversely, plonks Ms Begum on the moral high ground. One day, when she wins her case, he may even have to offer her compensation. His career would not survive that self-inflicted humiliation.

Crassly, too, the surprise decision overturns the indications from the Ministry of Justice that making Ms Begum stateless is contrary to international law and could not happen.

David Gauke, the secretary of state, sincerely, told the House of Commons as much only days ago.

Perhaps he has been overruled by the home secretary – it would be interesting to read their correspondence on the matter – and, presumably, the view the prime minister took on the issue.

So high profile is the Begum case that it is hard to imagine Theresa May would be kept out of the loop. It may be her decision as much as Mr Javid’s.

The Ministry of Justice and Mr Gauke were right first time round. It is argued that Ms Begum cannot be stateless because she can apply for Bangladeshi citizenship because her parents are from there.

She certainly can; but there is no guarantee that she would be granted it. She is not obliged to seek it. Right now she is indeed stateless.

The Bangladeshi authorities may not wish to have Ms Begum on their soil for the same reasons Mr Javid doesn’t want her in Britain. Her baby son, presumably will be treated in the same way (though he also has a possible claim for Dutch citizenship via his father).

The last resort – Syrian citizenship – is also, to put it mildly, problematic, and again, would not be automatic. She and her boy would be swiftly and brutally dealt with by the Syrian authorities, not known for their compassion towards Isis brides.

In truth, Ms Begum was a willing “citizen” of Islamic State, a state which never existed in any legitimate form and does not exist at all now.

Ms Begum is, in other words, a classic example of that status and has been made stateless by the British government, contrary to international legislation: all of a sudden, are British ministers the ones breaking the law and violating human rights?

A better response would have been for Mr Javid to use a temporary exclusion order to create the time he needs to assess the facts of the case properly.

We cannot know what, if any, offences Ms Begum committed in the barbaric chaos of Isis rule. She may have been brainwashed. Her lawyers argue the Metropolitan Police and Tower Hamlets Council failed in their duties in letting her slip abroad on her half-term break four years ago, when she was 15.

We do not know what intelligence about Isis she might be prepared to supply. We do not know if she would have been prepared to undergo deradicalisation. We don’t even know if her marriage was valid.

All of these things should have been ascertained before the home secretary took his decision. That they were not is itself a weakness in his defence, and will be a key point in the inevitable appeal against his decision. The legal wrangling could take years, and end badly for the British government.

Mr Javid has never made any secret about his wish to be prime minister, even to the point of self-satire, as when he styled himself “the Saj”, as if he were some latter day Tory Rambo figure.

He wants to impress a public understandably appalled by Ms Begum. He wants to defend national security. Yet she may be a larger threat to British and western security as a stateless figure at large in the Middle East.

At any rate, she should be allowed the justice and due process so many victims of Isis terror were denied during their incarceration in the caliphate. Mr Javid will need to change his mind, or have it changed for him.