A secret operation smuggling migrants TO Britain is being run by ministers who signed off the projected £7billion cost while a ‘superinjunction’ kept taxpayers and MPs in the dark.
Today after 23 months of being gagged, the Daily Mail can reveal the eye-watering scheme to bring in thousands of Afghans – which came after a military blunder put 100,000 ‘at risk of death’ from the Taliban.
Secret hearings in the High Court have heard how Parliament has been deliberately kept oblivious – or even ‘misled’, as a judge was told.
The covert airlift – codenamed Operation Rubific – was launched after the UK military catastrophically lost a database of Afghans who had applied for sanctuary in the UK in a scheme for those who had worked with British forces to flee the murderous Taliban.
The data blunder also exposed British officials whose details were on the database. And the Mail can exclusively reveal that several Afghans on list had previously been rejected for violent or sexual assaults.
Instead of coming clean about all this, the Ministry of Defence mounted a cover-up and successfully hushed up the Daily Mail’s exclusive data-breach story when we discovered it in August 2023.
Ever since then, cloaked by an unprecedented news blackout, ministers have been clandestinely running one of the biggest peacetime evacuation missions in modern British history to rescue people the UK had imperilled: smuggling thousands out of Afghanistan and flying them to Britain at vast cost, with taxpayers being neither asked nor informed.
So far 18,500 Afghans whose data was lost have been flown to Britain or are on their way in taxpayer-funded jets. A total of 23,900 are earmarked for arrival. They are living in MOD homes or hotels until permanent homes are found. Tens of thousands of others will be left behind in Afghanistan and will have to fend for themselves against vengeful Taliban warlords.
Farcically, many of the Afghans rescued by the Government are now poised to sue the UK for leaking their data in the first place – potentially adding a further £1billion compensation bonanza to the colossal costs of the rescue and rehousing mission.
Ministers agreed to spend £7billion while the superinjunction was keeping the public in the dark. Now, as they face their scheme becoming known – the High Court lifted the gagging order at noon today – they are belatedly downplaying it and saying it will cost ‘up to’ £6billion.
They even sheepishly admitted to the judge their 23-month superinjunction saga might even have made the whole situation worse by ‘inadvertently’ making the lost database seem more valuable to the Taliban, which has been hunting those Afghans deemed traitors for working with British forces.
A soldier escorts a family at Stansted on May 23 as part of a government scheme costed at £7billion smuggling migrants TO Britain after a data-leak blunder exposed by the Daily Mail
Unmarked government charter planes have been landing at airports including Stansted and RAF Brize Norton packed with hundreds of Afghans
The Afghans were flown in from Pakistan and then processed before being whisked off by coach to start a new life in Britain
One of the Government’s unmarked planes landing at Stansted Airport in Essex with 227 Afghans on board
The Daily Mail’s fight for open justice meant we took part in court hearings shown secret Whitehall briefing papers
A bombshell document – never seen before – revealing how Labour ministers met in October 2024 and agreed a scheme to relocate about 25,000 Afghans to the UK at a cost of £7billion
Daily Mail journalists faced jail by order of a Penal Notice if they revealed the Government’s secret – or even breathed a word about the existence of the draconian court order
Unbeknown to the public, the Government’s stealth resettlement scheme has been going on at the same time as Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has been warning Britain could become ‘an island of strangers’ without stricter limits on foreigners coming in. Labour ministers have pledged to ‘smash the gangs’ fuelling the small boats crisis – without telling anyone they have been effectively running their own secret immigration scheme.
While immigration is one of the most potent political topics, MPs have been deliberately kept in the dark about the Mail’s discovery of the Afghan data blunder – and the decision to devote billions of public money to fixing it by bringing in thousands of Afghans.
The overall projected cost of £7billion was signed off by Chancellor Rachel Reeves and other senior Cabinet ministers at a Whitehall meeting on October 7 last year, according to official papers shown to the High Court. The sum dwarfs both the recent benefits row and winter fuel U-turn.
On top of that is an unknown bill from future compensation payments. A Manchester firm of solicitors, Barings Law, has so far recruited more than 900 potential victims to sue the Government.
Today, after 23 months of secrecy and just hours before they knew the public would find out, ministers embarked on a drastic scaling back of the scheme, insisting it was now closed.
The Government has started sending messages to Afghans whose data it lost – who were never told – saying: ‘We sincerely apologise for this data incident and regret that on this occasion personal data was not safeguard to the UK Government’s standard.
‘We understand that this news may be concerning.’
The Daily Mail can reveal how:
- Panic gripped Whitehall in August 2023 over the data leak gifting the vengeful Taliban a ‘kill list’
- There were 33,000 entries on the database, plus family members – putting 100,000 ‘at risk of death’
- Some 18,500 Afghans have arrived so far, out of a total of 23,900 earmarked for rescue
- So far 900 of these – and counting – have lined up to launch compensation claims which could eventually top a potential £1billion
- The floodgates will also open for thousands of Afghans previously denied sanctuary to launch costly court appeals
- Amid a housing crisis, one in 10 of the new arrivals is expected to ‘enter the homelessness system’
- An incredible 20 per cent of all MOD property has been given over to housing Afghans
- Ministers were privately warned areas with Afghan arrivals were ‘hotspots’ for last summer’s riots
- Amid the news blackout there has already been unease and confusion in some UK towns over the recent influx of Afghan migrants
- MOD spinners plotted to ‘manage’ public knowledge whilst keeping journalists silenced, telling a judge they wanted to ‘control the narrative’
- A High Court judge responded to a suggestion the Government was deliberately misleading Parliament by observing: ‘It is very striking.’
- The MOD has warned of ‘the risk of public disorder’ following today’s ruling.
Defence Secretary John Healey today admitted the superinjunction was ‘unprecedented’ and ‘unconscionable’.
He offered a ‘sincere apology’ to those affected by the data breach.
‘From today, there will be no new offers of relocation to Britain. From today the route is now closed’, he said.
But he admitted that that Government would honour 600 invitations to Afghans still to move to the UK along with their families.
‘When this nation makes a promise, we should keep it’, he said.
The Defence Secretary said it has been ‘deeply uncomfortable to be constrained from reporting to this House’, as he referred to a superinjunction which was made at the High Court in September 2023 to reduce the risk of alerting the Taliban to the existence of a data breach.
In his statement to the Commons, Mr Healey said: ‘I’m announcing to the House a change in Government policy. I’m closing this resettlement route, I’m disclosing the data loss, and I’m confirming that the court order was lifted at 12 noon today.
‘Members of this House, including you, Mr Speaker, and myself, have been subject to this superinjunction.
‘It is unprecedented, and to be clear, the court has always recognised the parliamentary privilege of proceedings in this House, and ministers decided not to tell parliamentarians at an earlier stage about the data incident, as the widespread publicity would increase the risk of the Taliban obtaining the dataset.
‘But as parliamentarians and as Government ministers, it has been deeply uncomfortable to be constrained from reporting to this House, and I’m grateful today to be able to disclose the details to Parliament.’
He added he had felt ‘deeply concerned about the lack of transparency’ around the data breach.
‘No government wishes to withhold information from the British public, from parliamentarians or the press in this manner’, he said.
He added: ‘The full number of Afghan arrivals under all schemes have been reported in the regular Home Office statistics, meaning that they are already counted in the existing migration figures.’
Conservative MP James Cartlidge, Shadow Secretary of State for Defence, asked Mr Healey whether he would comment on claims a third party got hold of some the data after the leak and ‘was engaged in blackmail’.
He said: ‘Did the original Metropolitan Police investigation look at this and if not would he consider reopening it so police can have another look at that very specific point, which is very serious’.
Mr Healey did not respond.
Today is the first time we can reveal the Mail’s exclusive story, secret Operation Rubific and the Government’s unprecedented deployment of a superinjunction to silence a newspaper. The draconian court order – widely derided as an affront to open justice – secured in September 2023, has meant Mail journalists faced jail if they exposed the scandal, or even revealed that an injunction existed.
At the time, the MOD argued to the High Court that any publicity about its data-leak fiasco might further endanger lives.
Afghan interpreter ‘Shaffy’ standing next to David Cameron during the then Prime Minister’s visit in 2011. Shaffy was branded a traitor when the Taliban took power
David Cameron’s interpreter Shaffy finally made it to Britain in February 2024, and the Daily Mail watched his unmarked British government plane landing at Stansted Airport in Essex
For months the Mail, along with The Times and other newspapers, has been fighting for open justice at secret hearings held in special locked courtrooms.
On one occasion High Court judge Mr Justice Chamberlain remarked on the scheme’s breath-taking costs to British taxpayers, asking the MOD: ‘I’m starting to doubt myself…am I going bonkers?’ And he queried the secrecy they were demanding, saying: ‘One can quite understand that we are not going to give chapter and verse on weapons programmes. But this is a resettlement programme for immigrants to the UK.’
After Mr Justice Chamberlain finally lifted the superinjunction, the Mail can tell its astonishing exclusive story for the first time.
The Afghans in question were on a confidential UK database of names and contact details of those who had applied for sanctuary in Britain to escape the murderous Taliban regime which seized control of Afghanistan in 2021. But in a ‘bone chilling’ blunder, a British soldier mistakenly sent the entire database to an Afghan contact.
I’m starting to doubt myself…am I going bonkers?
When the leak was first discovered, in August 2023, the official assessment included fears that a Taliban, Russian or Iranian spy had hacked into MOD computers. A ‘spycatcher’ operation involving MI6, Scotland Yard and the CIA was launched. The then Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, chaired at least one emergency COBRA meeting, which set in train Operation Rubific to airlift thousands of imperilled Afghans betrayed by the British mistake.
The Mail’s journalists with sources in the UK, Afghanistan and Pakistan have been chronicling how, every few weeks, unmarked Government charter planes are landing at airports including Stansted and RAF Brize Norton packed with hundreds of Afghans, who are processed before being whisked off to a new life.
The Mail has long championed the cause of rescuing Afghans such as military interpreters or embassy staff who were loyal to British forces during the UK’s two decades in Afghanistan, before the Taliban swept back to power in 2021. Our 10-year award-winning Betrayal of the Brave campaign has saved countless lives.
Taliban fighters battling for control of Afghanistan for their warlords – who are now seeking revenge on interpreters and others who served alongside British forces
Last October, ministers signed off the £7billion project. A Cabinet Office briefing note dated February 3 this year, shown to the court, states they ‘agreed the current policy response’ to the data breach which ‘will mean relocating 25,000 Afghans who had previously been found ineligible…this will extend the scheme for another five years at a cost of c.£7bn’. This would still leave the majority of the original 100,000 people to be abandoned to their fate.
And as recently as last month, the Government set out ambitious plans to rescue a total of 42,572 people affected by the leak.
However at the 11th hour, Defence Secretary John Healey is now scrapping the Afghan Response Route (ARR) – on the same day the secret scheme is finally revealed.
The Government is now saying its scaling back of the scheme means taxpayers will be on the hook for up to £6billion, not £7billion, because 9,500 fewer people are coming than previously estimated.
It is understood ministers will honour promises already made to Afghans awaiting rescue, but will not accept any new cases. This means around 25,000 more Afghans are set to be flown here over the next few years, most of whom were not affected by the data leak but who have earned sanctuary in the UK.
Lifting the draconian court order after 683 days today at noon in the Royal Courts of Justice’s historic Court 4, Mr Justice Chamberlain ruled: ‘There is no tenable basis for the continuation of the superinjunction.’ He cited a recent internal review of the Government’s strategy with conclusions that ‘undermine the evidential basis’ for the injunction.
But late on Monday the Mail and other media were hit with a second injunction brought by the MOD – this time to ban sensitive details from the database itself from being published. The judge imposed a temporary gagging order to be reviewed in one week. The Mail – which was shown the database months ago – argued to be allowed to reveal some of its contents which it said were in the public interest.
Former frontline interpreter Rafi Hottak, who learned of the leak in August 2023, described it as a ‘devastating betrayal’ of those who entrusted their personal details to the UK.
Adnan Malik, Head of Data Protection at Barings Law, which already has 1,000 clients, said: ‘This is an incredibly serious data breach, which the Ministry of Defence has repeatedly tried to hide from the British public. It involved the loss of personal and identifying information about Afghan nationals who have helped British forces to defeat terrorism and support security and stability in the region.
‘A total of around 20,000 individuals have been affected, putting them and their loved ones at serious risk of violence from opponents and armed groups.
‘Through its careless handling of such sensitive information, the Ministry of Defence has put multiple lives at risk, damaged its own reputation, and put the success of future operations in jeopardy by eroding trust in its data security measures.’
Professor Sara de Jong, a founding member of the Sulha Alliance, a charity helping former Afghan interpreters and those who worked for the UK, was aware of the data leak within days of its discovery and said: ‘These Afghans protected us and they deserved our protection in return.
‘Through its careless handling of such sensitive information, the Ministry of Defence has put multiple lives at risk, damaged its own reputation, and put the success of future operations in jeopardy by eroding trust in its data security measures.’
‘A data leak of this scale is clearly a matter of public interest and preventing the media from reporting on it in the name of Afghan security seems rather disingenuous.’
Leigh Day human rights lawyer Erin Alcock, who has assisted hundreds of ARAP applicants and family members, said: ‘The news today is extremely concerning. We have been aware of rumours circulating of an incident of this kind for some time and have been concerned about any potential risks posed to our clients, particularly those remaining in Afghanistan.
‘Sadly, this incident represents a catastrophic failure by the Government to protect the personal information, and therefore safety, of what is an extremely vulnerable group of people.’
DAY THEY PLOTTED TO ‘MISLEAD’ PARLIAMENT DELIBERATELY
These are the jaw-dropping courtroom exchanges at a secret court hearing on 11 November 2024 – revealed here for the first time – after the Government revealed in private submissions its plan to keep the Press gagged with its superinjunction while spinning its own version of events in a statement to Parliament to ‘control the narrative’…
MOD official Natalie Moore’s note to the court: statement will ‘provide cover’
How ministers plotted to ‘control the narrative’ without telling the public the full facts
Mr Justice Chamberlain: ‘A statement that does not tell the whole truth to Parliament?’
High Court Judge Mr Justice Chamberlain: When you are dealing with public expenditure of that magnitude [£7billion]…it’s not possible to lose that amount of money down the back of the sofa.
It’s not secret intelligence programmes – it’s putting real people up in real accommodation in the UK without revealing it’s happening.
There was going to an announcement made [to Parliament] but which…the word ‘cover’ is used. The basis of the expenditure of all of this money isn’t going to be revealed.’
Jude Bunting KC, for the media: One of the key issues in the political debate right now is who is telling the truth about the public deficit. This is directly relevant to that debate. And another key issue is immigration. The injunction is stopping informed debate about how to house people coming to this country…That ‘agreed narrative’ is misleading the public by omission.’
Judge: The statement to Parliament will ‘provide cover’. It is a completely unprecedented situation, but we are seeing a witness statement indicating a statement to Parliament to provide ‘cover’. It is a very, very striking thing.
Jude Bunting KC, the media lawyer fighting for open justice, told the judge: ‘The Government is saying it is going to deliberately mislead the public’
Jude Bunting: The Government is saying it is going to deliberately mislead the public.
Judge: It is very striking.
Bunting: It is corrosive of democracy. It prevents the public being informed about the reason for £6billion of expenditure, at a time when immigration is at the forefront of debate. The courts have enabled the government to put a false narrative in place that would be corrosive.
Judge: How feasible [is it] to spend that amount of money without the facts coming to light? But we are now saying how it was feasible: making a statement that provides cover and agree a narrative which is not a true narrative, or not a full narrative.
Bunting: Journalists will be unable to ask questions or report or correct and fill in gaps.
Cathryn McGahey leaving the High Court
Cathryn McGahey KC, for the Government: It is acknowledged that the public’s ability to know how its money is being spent and parliamentary scrutiny [are being impeded] but on the basis that the injunction is saving lives.
Judge: ‘There has been this further information about how the government is going to provide ‘cover’, as it’s put, for the political consequences of bringing people to the UK by a statement that does not tell the whole truth to Parliament?
McGahey: It would tell as much of the truth as possible.
Judge: I’m starting to doubt myself – am I going bonkers, because it really is £6billion? [Later confirmed to be £7billion]
McGahey: It is…Yes it’s a very large amount of public money being spent without currently any information to the public.
Judge: There’s a difference. One can quite understand that we are not going to give chapter and verse on weapons programmes. But this is a resettlement programme for immigrants to the UK, which is not a topic I hitherto [would have put] into the national security box. It is unprecedented.
McGahey: This is not a situation anybody wanted to find themselves in. Secrecy has to be maintained to protect life.
