Due diligence is what counts, not trust in the process

On Boxing Day, Sir Keir Starmer said he was “delighted” that British-Egyptian dissident Alaa Abd el-Fattah had returned to the UK after being behind Egyptian bars for almost a decade, adding that this was a “top priority” for his government. Yesterday he ended up recognising that it has “added to the distress” of the UK’s Jewish community.

That was only after his previous comments on social media endorsing the “heroic” killing of Zionists, calling for the police to be killed, and branding British people “dogs and monkeys” started trending. Three days after to be precise. On the same day Abd el-Fattah was liking a Facebook post claiming he had been the victim of a “Zionist campaign”.

These weren’t hidden comments, they were public for all to see – and the European parliament did. They withdrew his nomination for the Sakharov prize for freedom of thought in 2014. But that didn’t seem to cut through here.

The British state campaigned for his freedom from Egypt, including granting him citizenship in 2021 due to the circumstances of his mother’s birth, and put on a dogged diplomatic showing, with the backing of a series of celebrities and politicians.

As Giles has written, having himself seen some of the process, it raises questions for the current Labour government, but also former Tory governments on quite how citizenship ended up being secured:

“Did we simply offer the man citizenship as leverage in part of an international campaign to free Egyptian political prisoners or did we want him to come here all along?”

Kemi Badenoch has set out a new straight approach for the party, arguing that British citizenship carries rights and responsibilities. There is no doubt Abd El-Fattah was treated harshly, denied a free and fair trial in Egypt. But should he have citizenship? She says options should include revoking his and removing him from Britain.

Unfortunately it is difficult to see this sorry affair as anything but a win for Reform who can once again play this as a uniparty/Whitehall issue. It is hard to get around that Conservative ministers who granted Abd el-Fattah citizenship in the first place. Part of Abd el-Fattah’s imprisonment was for his comments on social media (not the ones causing controversy here), but you’d think there might have been some further examination of his posts.

What the Tory Leader acknowledges is that part of the failure has been a series of MPs who act before thinking – “virtue-signalling over due-diligence”.

She is right. But that nature can afflict Tory MPs, both ministerial and on the backbenches.

If you’re advocating on behalf of the British government for the release of an individual to the point you’re going to grant them citizenship, perhaps a background check is in order. The European parliament managed to do it before awarding a freedom of thought prize; British citizenship is a bigger prize than that.

If you are signing a letter calling for Abd el-Fattah’s release and return to Britain, maybe a cursory search to check their history is a good idea. MPs have staffers arrange their diaries, organise Christmas cards – but for something as big as getting the British state to throw its diplomatic weight, that draws blanks? 

There were a series of Tory MPs whose signatories were included on different letters. Both former Tory leader Sir Iain Duncan-Smith and former foreign affairs committee chair Alicia Kearns have expressed “regret” at their involvement. Sir Iain has since urged the police to investigate Abd el-Fattah’s comments, while Kearns added: “I trusted the process to give Alaa citizenship, and then supported the campaign for his release. I feel deeply let down, and frankly betrayed.”

We must get politics back to working in a way that involves scrutiny at its core. ‘Trust in the process’ just shouldn’t be an excuse. MPs have weight in adding their signatures, and some due diligence is necessary. Sure, higher levels were responsible for the sign-offs of these decisions, but it does not mean that blindly backing a cause is then okay. Sympathy for feeling “betrayed” is lacking given the context.

The sympathy goes to Jewish people, the police and all of those who have been targets of Abd el-Fattah’s tweets – not from when he was a child, as some are trying to make out, but when he was nearer to 30 years-old.

But while Duncan-Smith and Kearns have expressed regret for their involvements, Sir Keir Starmer’s No10 still believes his arrival in the UK is “welcome”.

The Tories are likely to be pushing this issue further, even if there are worries it could benefit Reform, because they see it could develop the debate around questions of citizenship and national identity, and potentially inflict yet another wound on the Labour Government.

I understand they have an opposition day debate scheduled in the first two weeks of Parliament’s return in 2026, and the Tories may go for a binding resolution to cause a problem for the government and create a vote to strip Abd El-Fattah of his citizenship and remove him from the UK. Politically, it could cause havoc for Labour MPs having to vote against.

But there is more to be done, more fundamental changes to be made.

A review has been launched as to how those in the Foreign Office failed to spot Abd el-Fattah’s posts, with current Labour and former Tory ministers “never briefed” on the tweets and civil servants “unaware”, in a complete lack of due diligence. But one wonders how many ministers separately have done their own due diligence on civil service advice – the system is not set up to allow what should be a legitimate and clearly necessary task.

A job if the Tories were to ever get into government again is setting themselves up to scrutinise the system, perhaps following in the footsteps of Michael Gove and Dominic Cummings in bringing non-exec directors into departments as almost secret spads to check over civil service work.

There is much work to be done to stop a similar situation arising.