CAGE International speaks at Global Conference on Statelessness in Malaysia to highlight UK’s Draconian Citizenship Deprivation Policy

London - Last week, CAGE International attended the 2024 World Conference on Statelessness, hosted by the Institute on Statelessness and Inclusion in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. In attendance were over 400 delegates, including scholars, activists, politicians, and UN representatives. 

Representing CAGE International was human rights lawyer Fahad Ansari, who highlighted the emergence of the UK's draconian policy of citizenship deprivation over the last two decades. Ansari also explained how once deprivation decisions are appealed, British courts, namely the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC), rely on secret evidence inaccessible to defendants and deny people the right to due process. 

The citizenship deprivation policy is crafted towards exploiting Islamophobic and racist sentiments for political gain rather than a genuine concern for the country’s safety and security. Not only does it undermine fundamental rights granted to citizens but also perpetuates systemic injustices within the UK's immigration framework and judicial system, creating a second tier of citizenship among the UK’s Muslim and immigrant communities.

Fahad Ansari, senior lawyer and representative of CAGE International, said: 

“I was invited on behalf of CAGE International to talk about the deprivation of citizenship policies in the UK and how we have come to this stage where British society is happy for the judicial, executive and legislative branches of the government to collaborate and render a child victim of grooming and trafficking to be stateless and left abandoned to her fate in a prison camp in the middle of the desert.

In this conference, I explored how we got to this point in the last 20 years. What came as a shock to many of the people in attendance was the fact that British courts rely on secret evidence under closed material procedure. In response to this revelation, delegates stated that British courts were not consistent with the rule of law and due process.”