Written evidence from ITN Solicitors on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood (ISL0016)

 

Dear Mr Blunt

 

Foreign Affairs Committee Review into “political Islam”

 

We act on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt and the Freedom & Justice Party.

 

We attach to this letter a submission to the committee which provides evidence with regards to the Government’s Muslim Brotherhood Review (‘the Review’) as announced in April 2014.

 

We appreciate from the Inquiry’s terms of reference that the Inquiry has a wider interest in the Muslim Brotherhood generally and the Freedom and Justice Party’s time in office in Egypt. In order to assist the Committee in that regard, we have also provided by way of background additional documents that had previously been prepared for and submitted to the Government’s Review panel and to the United Nations.

 

The three additional documents provide detailed information in respect of our client as an organisation and the human rights violations that permeated Egypt following the coup in 2013. The documents are:

 

  1. The submission on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood to the Government’s Review;

 

  1. Submission on behalf of the Freedom and Justice Party to the United Nations Universal Periodic Review of Egypt; and

 

  1. A follow on submission to the United Nations.

 

In addition to the documentary evidence provided we are instructed that our clients are prepared to attend before the Committee to provide further evidence. Our client suggests that the Committee should hear from:

 

 

 

 

Should the inquiry wish to hear from Mr Darrag, Mr Hamed on behalf of the Freedom & Justice Party or Mr Ibrahim Munir on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood we would be happy to assist with making the necessary arrangements for them to attend.

 

 

Muslim Brotherhood

 

Submission to the Foreign Affairs Committee Inquiry into political Islam

 

 

  1. INTRODUCTION

 

  1. In April 2014 the Prime Minister announced a government Review into the Muslim Brotherhood (‘the Review’). He appointed the former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Sir John Jenkins, to lead the Review.

 

  1. In response, the Muslim Brotherhood and Freedom and Justice Party (‘FJP’) issued a press release stating that they intended to “openly engage” with the Review and “will make representations to assist the Government’s inquiry into the organisation’s philosophy and values, its policies and its track record both in and out of Government”.[1]

 

  1. The Muslim Brotherhood instructed senior lawyers to advise and represent them in the process. The legal team included leading human rights lawyer Tayab Ali of ITN Solicitors, Rodney Dixon Q.C. and the former Director of Pubic Prosecutions, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven Q.C.

 

  1. It is important to understand the context in which the Prime Minister made his announcement and the situation in which the Muslim Brotherhood offered their open engagement. The wake of the Arab Spring had led Egyptians to their first ever free and fair parliamentary elections in 2011, followed by equally free and fair presidential elections in 2012. The elections had resulted in senior Muslim Brotherhood and FJP Member, Mohamed Morsi, being elected as the first civilian president of Egypt. On 3 July 2013 Egyptian army General Abdel Fatteh el-Sisi led a coup which illegally removed President Morsi and saw most of the democratically elected government imprisoned.

 

  1. Following the 2013 coup, human rights organisations began to record and report on the widespread human rights violations being perpetrated by the military in Egypt. According to Human Rights Watch and other respected organisations, thousands of people have subsequently been murdered by the new regime and tens of thousands imprisoned without trial. Disappearances, kidnappings and torture are routine and many hundreds of prisoners have been sentenced to death, without representation, in mass trials lacking any conventional norms of justice. President Morsi himself has been sentenced to death.

 

  1. It therefore caused a good deal of consternation[2] when, in April 2014, the Prime Minister announced a Review, not into the atrocities committed by the military regime in Egypt nor into how the Middle East’s most promising post-Arab Spring democracy had been removed through a coup, but instead into the Muslim Brotherhood as an organisation.

 

  1. There was much speculation at the time that the Review had been ordered not as a result of any genuine security concerns about the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood in the UK but rather in response to pressure exerted by the Saudis and other Gulf States who felt their own regimes were threatened by the rise of democracy in the Middle East and by the Muslim Brotherhood’s role in those processes.

 

  1. Documents leaked to the British press and referred to in reports take matters much further and raise questions of concern. These documents suggest that the United Arab Emirates threatened that, in the absence of the UK government taking action against the Muslim Brotherhood, arms deals and natural resource concessions worth billions of pounds would be blocked.[3] This included pressure from third states “that persuaded Cameron to order a surprise 'review' into the Muslim Brotherhood.”[4]

 

  1. As a result, the Muslim Brotherhood remain concerned that the Review may not have been prompted by any real security concerns. The manner in which the Review was released and the various machinations of the Review provide succour to those fears. Indeed, there were many widespread reports prior to the publication of the main findings of the Review that Sir John Jenkins had concluded that the Muslim Brotherhood represented no security threat in this country and that the Prime Minister’s announcement on the conclusion of the Review was repeatedly delayed as a result. The main findings as released present a complete misrepresentation of the Muslim Brotherhood and suggest that the findings were pre-ordained irrespective of the facts or evidence.

 

  1. Whilst the importance of international trade to the UK economy is recognised, it is not appropriate for the British government to use Reviews in a bad-faith attempt to shore up commercial deals and alliances abroad, if that is what has happened in this case.

 

  1. This is particularly pronounced if the purpose or effect of the Review was to damage the reputation of an Islamic movement that promoted democracy in the Middle East making it less effective in bringing democratic change in a part of the world where it is desperately needed.

 

  1. In light of the seriousness of this matter, we are grateful for your Inquiry into “political Islam”, including consideration of the circumstances in which the UK government came to announce a Review into the Muslim Brotherhood. This Inquiry is timely and of significance to the UK’s relationship and engagement with political Islam.

 

  1. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

 

  1. In April 2014 the Prime Minister announced that he had commissioned an “internal government review” into the Muslim Brotherhood, looking at its “philosophy, activities” and “its impact and influence on UK national interests, home and abroad.” The review was also to examine Government policy towards the Muslim Brotherhood. These objectives and issues were very broadly framed. It was not suggested that the Review was investigating any particular issues of concern, or investigating any particular events.

 

  1. Interested parties were able to submit evidence before Friday 30 May 2014.

 

  1. Sir John Jenkins was appointed to conduct the internal Review, later joined by Mr Charles Farr, the then Director General of the Office for Security and Counter-terrorism. The National Security Secretariat of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office provided logistical support. It is however understood that the Review was conducted under the auspices of the Cabinet Office and the Prime Minister.

 

  1. The Muslim Brotherhood welcomed the opportunity to engage with the Review and met with xxxxxxxxx, of the National Security Secretariat, on 12 May 2014. The Muslim Brotherhood agreed to facilitate meetings between senior members of the Muslim Brotherhood and senior members of the Review Panel. In addition to a number of meetings four very senior meetings of note took place. The meetings were:

 

    1. 9 June 2014 - Sir John Jenkins met with Mr Mahmoud Hussein who was the Muslim Brotherhood Secretary General. The meeting took place in Qatar.

 

    1. 2 July 2014 – Sir John Jenkins met with Mr Ibrahim Munir who is the Secretary General of the International Section of the Muslim Brotherhood. The meeting took place in London.

 

    1. 12 June 2014 – Charles Farr met with Mr Ibrahim Munir. This meeting took place in London.

 

    1. June 2014 – Review panel members met with Mr Yehia Hamed who is a senior Muslim Brotherhood and Freedom & Justice Party member. Mr Hamed was appointed as Minister of Investment as part of President Morsi’s government. The meetings took place in Turkey.

 

  1. The meetings that took place between the Review panel and the Muslim Brotherhood were cordial and open. No subject or question was deemed to be ‘off limits’. Every question asked of the Muslim Brotherhood leadership was answered.

 

  1. As part of the Muslim Brotherhood’s commitment to open engagement with the Review it organised and held an open meeting at the Houses of Parliament on 10 June 2014. The meeting included presentations by three senior leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood and a number of prominent independent academics with specialist knowledge of the history and structure of the Muslim Brotherhood. An invitation was extended to the Review panel to attend the meeting.

 

  1. The purpose of the meeting was to allow open access to very senior members of the Muslim Brotherhood and allow attendees to meet with senior leaders and speak to them directly. The meeting was very well attended allowing for standing room only.

 

  1. The Muslim Brotherhood also provided the Review with a detailed written submission addressing its history, philosophy and time in government. The submission has been annexed to this document.

 

  1. NOTICE OF RELEASE

 

  1. The Muslim Brotherhood was acutely aware of the repressive situation in Egypt and the prospect that hostile parties would seek to provide false evidence to the Review panel in order to attempt to damage its political reputation and justify the actions being taken against the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood therefore made it clear to the Review panel that it wished to be provided with an opportunity to refute any criticisms or allegations made of it by third parties prior to the release of the Review. The Muslim Brotherhood advised the Review panel that it would be unfair for any adverse findings to be made public without it being given a proper opportunity to rebut any criticisms. This request was communicated on a number of occasions.

 

  1. The Muslim Brotherhood also requested confirmation that adequate notice would be provided of any public statement of the Prime Minister in relation to the review. The purpose of this correspondence was to ensure that the Muslim Brotherhood would be given notice if any public statement was to be made which contained adverse conclusions. If that had been the case, then the Muslim Brotherhood could have sought judicial review of such a decision on the basis that it would be unfair to publish adverse conclusions without providing them with a right to respond to the criticisms first.

 

  1. In response, the Review panel provided express promises on a number of occasions that the Muslim Brotherhood would be given fair notice before anything was published, and would be able to seek to make representations if any criticism were to be published.[5]

 

  1. Despite the repeated assurances it soon became clear that the government did not intend to provide the Muslim Brotherhood with any notice and was not intending on providing any form of right to reply.

 

  1. The Review was thereafter subject to a number of announced releases.  For example, in correspondence with the Government Legal Department, the Muslim Brotherhood were told

 

“The Prime Minister intends to make a statement to the House of Commons on Monday, 16 March 2015. That statement will set out the Government’s position, informed by the internal review, on the Muslim Brotherhood. In doing so, the main conclusions of the review will be set out. The government also proposes to lay a summary of the findings of the review before the House pursuant to a motion for unopposed return for which notice has been given in the Order Paper.”

 

  1. However, in a further letter of 16 March 2015 the government made clear that no publication would be made at that time stating that “…the Prime Minister has decided that the main findings of the Muslim Brotherhood Review will now be published alongside the Government’s new counter-extremism strategy at a date yet to be determined.”

 

  1. No proper explanation for this sudden change of mind was provided. However, on 16 March 2015 the Prime Minister laid a written Ministerial statement before the House, which was limited to the following:

 

“I would like to update the House that a report into the main findings of the Muslim Brotherhood Review will be published alongside the Government’s new counter-extremism strategy.”

 

  1. On 18 March 2015, ITN wrote a further letter to the Government Legal Department requesting inter alia clarification of when the Review Findings might be released; confirming the legal basis for a right to reply and prior notice; strongly challenged the assertion that the Muslim Brotherhood was associated with extremism; and did not fit with the British government’s definition of extremism.[6] No response was received to that letter.

 

  1. A series of correspondence followed, in which the Government Legal Department repeatedly sought extensions of time to respond to the letter of 18 March 2015. No explanation for the further delay was provided but each request included a number of assurances to the Muslim Brotherhood that the Review would not be released without prior notice.

 

  1. Despite these assurances, on 16 December 2015 the Muslim Brotherhood learnt that there was an intention to imminently publish the Review findings. ITN therefore wrote urgently to the Government Legal Department on 16 December 2015, seeking confirmation that the Government Legal Department would stand by its previous assurances to the Muslim Brotherhood. A letter from the Government Legal Department was sent at 15:40 on the same date. Far from giving the confirmation sought, the letter confirmed “a motion has now been tabled in Parliament that the main findings of the Muslim Brotherhood Review be published tomorrow by Parliament by way of return to an address.”

 

  1. This letter resiled from the assurances that had been given that the Muslim Brotherhood would be given reasonable prior notice of any publication. The timing of the letter also precluded for all practical purposes any judicial review proceedings being brought prior to publication because the letter stated that main findings of the review would be published early the following day and in Parliament.

 

  1. RELEASE OF THE REVIEW

 

  1. A document entitled “Muslim Brotherhood Review: Main Findings” was published by order of the House of Commons on 17 December 2015 (HC 679). This was accompanied by a written statement to Parliament by the Prime Minister on the same day.

 

  1. This was done in circumstances in which, as the Cabinet Office and the Prime Minister knew that (a) the Muslim Brotherhood had not been informed of criticisms against it or provided with an opportunity to address them, and (b) the Muslim Brotherhood had not been provided with a fair opportunity to address numerous other important parts of the report.

 

  1. We wish to make clear to the Foreign Affairs Committee that the Muslim Brotherhood is disappointed in the approach that has been taken by the British Government in relation to the Review process, both in relation to the failure to respect fundamental fairness in the process (and even the courtesy of being informed of serious criticisms being made against it) and in relation to the specific promises made to it that the report would not be published without reasonable notice being given to the Muslim Brotherhood.

 

  1. THE MAIN FINDINGS

 

  1. The Review was commissioned as an “internal” and “confidential” report. However, extensive findings were published in December 2015 (“the Main Findings”). These included both general and specific findings relating to the Muslim Brotherhood, the nature of the organisation, the views of its members and leadership and its activities.

 

  1. The main findings of the Review do not present any new policy or insight into the Muslim Brotherhood. Instead the Review report contains a litany of vague and unfair characterisations of the Muslim Brotherhood and any one said to be associated to it.

 

  1. The statements can be, easily and worryingly, manipulated by autocratic regimes in the Middle East to attempt to marginalise pro-democratic movements including the Muslim Brotherhood. Below are some comments on some of the main findings in the Review:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“In 2009 the then government suspended dialogue with the MCB after an office holder signed a public document which appeared to condone violence against any country supporting an arms blockade against Gaza. There has been no substantive dialogue since then between any part of the Brotherhood in the UK and Government.” (at 24)

 

The MCB is the Muslim Council of Britain. It is not part of the Muslim Brotherhood. The MCB was formed in 1997 as an independent, non-sectarian and broad body. The Muslim Brotherhood was not involved in the formation of that organisation, is not involved in the governance of that body and does not form any parts of its constitution. The purported limited relationship between the Muslim Brotherhood and other organisations – including the Muslim Council of Britain – was not known to be in issue and therefore not addressed by the Muslim Brotherhood in its submissions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  1. There are a number of other serious and inaccurate negative findings made in the published Main Findings of the Report. The Main Findings also provides conclusions based on events that occurred after the Review process had been completed.

 

  1. In addition to the Review Findings, the Prime Minister laid a written ministerial statement before Parliament in which he stated that “the main findings of the review support the conclusion that membership of, association with, or influence by the Muslim Brotherhood should be considered as a possible indicator of extremism.” This is a very clear example of the immediate adverse impact of the Review on the Muslim Brotherhood and its members.

 

  1. It is notable that the Prime Minister chose to announce the Review in Parliament behind the veil of parliamentary privilege, putting the Review process beyond judicial scrutiny. The Prime Minister was acutely aware that the deeply flawed Review process would have failed judicial scrutiny.

 

  1. Moreover, there have been no policy announcements made as a result of the Review. Given the time, effort and public cost associated with the Review, the failure to formulate any tangible policy is symptomatic of the deeply flawed Review process.

 

  1. FAIRNESS

 

  1. The principle that those conducting an inquiry must comply with standards of fairness and natural justice is well established in common law. It is the prospect of adverse findings of fact being made which may have serious repercussions which gives rise to a duty of fairness, and the duty of fairness requires that individuals or organisations be given a reasonable opportunity to answer allegations against them.

 

  1. Here, the Muslim Brotherhood was never told of any of the criticisms made of it. Nor was it told of any specific issues upon which the Review panel would focus. Therefore, whilst the Muslim Brotherhood was given an opportunity to make submissions, it was doing so in good faith and on a blank canvas, without knowing on which areas it needed to concentrate or focus or what criticisms were being levelled against it. That is unfair. Furthermore, since the Cabinet Office was aware that the Muslim Brotherhood had not been given such an opportunity, adverse findings should not have been made public.

 

  1. Accordingly, the Review has been characterised by unfairness, delay and unjustified conclusions.

 

  1. THE IMPACT OF THE REVIEW

 

  1. The impact on the Muslim Brotherhood of the Prime Minister’s decision is very grave. The Muslim Brotherhood is the largest civil society organisation in the Middle East, which is active in many countries and provides inter alia representation, support, aid and charity to Muslims across the world. It remains committed to the democratic process.

 

  1. The Muslim Brotherhood’s leadership is committed to non-violent resistance despite over 20,000 of its members (including President Morsi and other senior leaders) being held in illegal detention in Egypt, many of whom have been sentenced to death.

 

  1. As testament to the Muslim Brotherhood’s commitment to non-violent reform, it remains steadfast in seeking solutions through international legal and political institutions. It has sought remedies at local courts in Egypt, the African Commission of Human and Peoples’ Rights, the African Union, the International Criminal Court, the United Nations as well as national courts across the world including the High Court of England and Wales. It has laid criminal complaints against the military regime in a number of countries. As a result, police agencies in some jurisdictions are currently actively investigating complaints of torture and crimes against humanity perpetrated by the military regime following the 2013 coup in Egypt.

 

  1. By publishing unchecked findings in the Review, by stating that aspects of its ideology and tactics “are contrary to our values and … our national security” and by stating that there is a close connection with extremism and terrorism, the Muslim Brotherhood will be caused difficulties in its attempts to promote non-violent democratic reform in Egypt and around the world. In addition, it has unfairly suffered serious damage to its reputation to which it has no legal remedy.

 

  1. For the avoidance of doubt, the Muslim Brotherhood refutes any allegation of association with extremism or terrorism in any way. The Muslim Brotherhood is a peaceful and progressive religious association whose values are antithetical to terrorism, violence and extremism.[7]

 

  1. Given the discrepancies between the position of the Muslim Brotherhood and the UK Review findings, the Foreign Affairs Committee must be provided with a full copy of the Report to properly be able to avail themselves of the facts. Without the full report, the Foreign Affairs Committee will have to draw on a summary that is deeply flawed and possibly not reflective of the actual Review findings.

 

  1. In the interests of openness, we would ask that the Muslim Brotherhood are advised as to whether the full review findings have been disclosed the Foreign Affairs Committee.

 

 

 

1 July 2016

 

[1] http://www.itnsolicitors.com/News-and-Views/Press-Statement--Muslim-Brotherhood-responds-to-Br

[2] For instance, on 1 April 2014 Amnesty International issued a press release advising that “UK Government’s Muslim Brotherhood review must not ignore crackdown in Egypt” Amnesty International Press Release 1 April 2014 https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/uk-governments-muslim-brotherhood-review-must-not-ignore-crackdown-egypt

[3] See, Randeep Ramesh in the Guardian, “UAE told UK: crack down on Muslim Brotherhood or lose arms deals” (6 November 2015) available at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/06/uae-told-uk-crack-down-on-muslim-brotherhood-or-lose-arms-deals

[4] See, David Rose, the Daily Mail, “Cameron and the Arab Sheiks' web of influence that infiltrated Britain (18 October 2015) available at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3277345/Cameron-Arab-Sheiks-web-influence-infiltrated-Britain-shadowy-nexus-PM-s-cronies-secretively-lobbied-Middle-East-paymasters.html#ixzz472AZsgMo

[5] Evidence in this regard can be provided to the FAC Inquiry if required

[6] The relevant correspondence relating to how the Muslim Brotherhood do not fit with the definition of “extremism” can be provided the Inquiry if required.

[7] Further evidence in this regard can be provided if required.