Revoking someone’s citizenship is a drastically punitive measure regardless of the crime someone has committed. It is only lawful for the Home Secretary to do this if it does not render that person stateless.

Shamima Begum, the teenager who travelled to Syria in 2015 in order to join ISIS had her citizenship revoked by Sajid Javid on national security grounds a few days after she was found in a refugee camp in north-east Syria in 2019. There are a number of factors that made this decision shocking – none of which is to excuse the seriousness of any crimes she may have committed and should be held accountable for.

First was that Begum was only fifteen when she was groomed online to travel to ISIS, and received significant assistance in doing so; as a result she endured significant hardship and sexual exploitation while still a child. And second, Javid argued his decision was lawful because she was theoretically entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship through her parents until the age of 21, although Bangladesh has denied any responsibility for her and said it would execute her if she were ever to set foot there.

Begum’s legal appeal against Javid’s decisions has been working its way through the British courts in recent years. She lost her initial legal challenge on the case’s preliminary grounds, then won the right to come to the UK to challenge the Home Office’s decision in the Court of Appeal. This was overturned by the Supreme Court in 2021, who ruled that the Home Secretary’s powers to revoke citizenship are wide-ranging and depend on their own assessment of national security.

Last week, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Tribunal produced its judgment on the substantive issues in the case. It found that while there was a “credible suspicion” Begum had been trafficked to Syria for the purposes of sexual exploitation as a child, Javid’s decision to revoke her citizenship could only be challenged on the grounds he had made a mistake in the decision-making process, and that he was within his rights not to take this or other factors into account.

This is a thoroughly depressing outcome. Begum’s sex trafficking as a child certainly does not absolve her of any crimes, but it is an important contextual factor that should be taken into account. Her theoretical entitlement to Bangladeshi citizenship expired on her 21st birthday, so Javid’s decision has now left her technically as well as substantively stateless, an outcome he could have foreseen. She would have been treated differently had she lacked the time-limited right to alternative citizenship through her parents. And the fact is that Begum was born in the UK and was groomed online while she was still at school – and her school and the police failed in their safeguarding duties towards her.

The decision to strip Begum of her British citizenship was a knee-jerk reaction to the interviews she gave

Javid’s decision is also out of step with international best practice, because it fails to eliminate any national security risks, as the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation has argued. (Such risks are already likely to be substantively lower because of her sex.) The US – and other allies – have repatriated their own citizens from the Kurdish-operated camps in Syria where Begum is currently based – because they believe the camps threaten both regional and global security.

The more we learn about this case, the more it appears that the decision to strip Begum of her British citizenship so quickly was a knee-jerk reaction to the interviews she gave to the media; as a result, the government was driven by wanting to look tough, rather than giving a considered assessment of what would constitute natural justice and best serve national security.

If the courts’ interpretation of the law is ultimately found to be correct, the law undoubtedly gives too much power to the Home Secretary to make important decisions about citizenship based on political considerations.

Private morality in public office

Nicola Sturgeon’s shock resignation has paved the way for an SNP leadership contest that surprisingly has so far seemed to generate more debate about the role of religion in politics than the future of Scottish independence. That’s because Kate Forbes, one of the three candidates to replace her, is a member of the Free Church of Scotland, which takes a highly conservative approach to social issues. Forbes shares its view that abortion is immoral and marriage should only be between a man and a woman, setting her against the socially liberal stance not just of her party, but the whole of Scotland, on abortion and gay marriage.

The strong criticism of Forbes’ views has triggered questions about whether there can ever be a place for leadership from politicians whose faith shapes their social conservatism. It has to depend on how they handle it. Personally, I respect their right to hold views and moral positions that I strongly disagree with in their personal life and the practice of their faith. But once they make those views political – by commenting that they would have voted on past laws in a way that would seek to impose their own moral position on the rest of society, as Forbes has done – they are absolutely fair game for public scrutiny and it’s entirely appropriate to factor them into judgments about someone’s leadership potential.

Sonia Sodha is chief leader writer at the Observer and a Guardian/Observer columnist