An illegal immigrant from Sudan who supports ISIS has been awarded permanent residency in the UK after his lawyers successfully argued that returning him to his home country would violate his human rights.
Judges in the United Kingdom have disregarded Home Office fears about the threat posed by a Sudanese immigrant who entered the country illegally in 2005 and again in 2018 after having his British passport revoked. According to security services, the migrant had actively spread propaganda for the Islamic State (ISIS) and has now been granted UK citizenship and lifelong anonymity.
Reports on Sunday (31st December) stated that attorneys representing the Sudanese national, who has only been allowed to be referred to as “S3,” were successful in convincing judges that deporting him would violate his human rights as doing so would subject him to torture and detention should he return to the African country. The justices appeared to be persuaded by this argument even though S3 had returned to his native country several times without encountering any problems.
The illegal migrant started actively disseminating ISIS propaganda on social media during one of his four-month stays in Sudan, according to the MI5 security service. Thus, the government contended that S3 was a risk to the British public’s national security.
The Sudanese man “had demonstrated a commitment to the extremist ideology of ISIS,” according to court documents seen by the MoS. Additionally, as per MI5, there was a realistic possibility that he would seek to radicalize other individuals and encourage them to engage in Islamist extremist activities.
In their defence against his deportation, the illegal immigrant’s legal team referenced the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Brexit has no bearing on the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) or its Strasbourg-based court, even though the UK has left the EU. This is because the ECHR is an institution that exists independently of the EU.
Brexiteers, such as Nigel Farage and former Home Secretary Suella Braverman, have maintained that for the administration of Rishi Sunak to fulfil its pledge to retake control of the country’s borders, it must leave the European Convention on Human Rights. According to the reports, there were rumours in February 2023 that the government was using the ECHR as a defence to keep at least 53 terrorists who had been found guilty of their crimes from being deported.
The verdict this month will allow the suspected Islamist to stay in the country indefinitely, and the people who live near him will not be entitled to know that they might be cohabiting with a possible terrorist.
Former leader of the Conservative Party Sir Iain Duncan Smith criticized the decision, calling it “ridiculous.” Judges should be aware that a person has given up his human rights to be in the UK when the Security Services determine that he poses a threat to the public in Britain, he said.
Alp Mehmet, the chairman of the Migration Watch UK think tank also commented on the matter and said, “Either our immigration judges are gullible or they derive a perverse pleasure from siding with chancers, crooks, and terrorists, and putting their interests before those of the British people. If terrorists are to roam freely among us, we have a right to know who they are and what harm they could potentially do.”
British judges have a long and gross history of obstructing the deportation of terrorists and foreign criminals. In a contentious instance, judges in the UK halted the deportation of the majority of convicts from Jamaica, including a rapist and a killer convicted of a crime, because the inmates had been temporarily denied access to cell phones while in custody.
Also, in 2020, a judge in Scotland ruled that a terrorist from the Taliban should not be sent back to Afghanistan because he had PTSD from fighting against Western allies, possibly including British soldiers, and should instead receive free medical treatment in the UK because the same level of care was not available in his home country.
