In what has been described as the worst data breach in British history, a scandal involving the mishandling and cover-up of sensitive information about thousands of Afghans and British military personnel has erupted, exposing deep failures in government oversight and transparency. The breach, which remained hidden from both Parliament and the public for over two years due to an unprecedented superinjunction, has now sparked fierce parliamentary scrutiny and a formal inquiry by the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC).
At the heart of the controversy is an email sent in February 2022 by an unnamed official at the UK Special Forces headquarters in London. Intended to contain details of roughly 150 Afghan evacuees, the email mistakenly included a spreadsheet with over 30,000 resettlement applications. This massive leak exposed the identities of nearly 19,000 Afghans who had worked alongside British forces, placing them at grave risk of Taliban reprisals. The spreadsheet also inadvertently revealed the names of more than 100 British officials, soldiers, and a handful of MI6 officers, information that could compromise national security.
The breach was not discovered until August 2023, when a man in Afghanistan posted on Facebook identifying nine individuals from the leaked data and threatening to release more. This forced the Ministry of Defence (MoD) to act swiftly, applying for a gagging order in September 2023 to prevent further dissemination of the data. The High Court granted a superinjunction, an extraordinary legal measure that even barred the public from knowing about the injunction’s existence. This secrecy persisted until a judge lifted the order in July 2025.
Lord Beamish, chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee, expressed grave concern over the government's decision to withhold information from the committee, which has a statutory duty to oversee intelligence matters. In a letter to ministers, he condemned the secrecy as "appalling" and unprecedented in his experience. "We were unable to ask for the documents before because we did not know about them," he said. "But it will be interesting to find out why they were withheld from us given that one of the judges suggested they shared them with the ISC." He emphasized that under the Justice and Security Act 2013, classification or sensitivity of material is not grounds to withhold information from the ISC, which operates behind closed doors precisely to hold intelligence services accountable.
The ISC has now demanded immediate access to all Defence Intelligence and Joint Intelligence Organisation assessments related to the Afghan Resettlement Assistance Programme (ARAP) and the data breach. The committee is poised to launch a full inquiry, potentially calling ministers, former ministers, and officials to give evidence. This follows the revelation that the previous Conservative government, including former Defence Secretaries Ben Wallace and Grant Shapps, as well as Deputy Prime Minister Oliver Dowden and Armed Forces Minister James Heappey, were aware of the breach and the gagging order but chose to keep it secret.
Ben Wallace has taken full responsibility for the breach and the decision to seek the injunction, while James Heappey described the incident as "gut-wrenching." However, Grant Shapps and former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, who presided over much of the cover-up, have yet to make public statements. New Labour Defence Secretary John Healey lifted the superinjunction after a government-ordered review found the risk to those affected by Taliban reprisals was greater and more prolonged than initially thought.
The fallout has been enormous. The government covertly established the Afghanistan Response Route (ARR) to resettle approximately 7,000 of those affected, along with 3,600 family members, at a projected cost of around £850 million. Despite this, reports indicate that thousands of Afghans named in the breach who remain in Afghanistan are unlikely to receive compensation. The resettlement scheme has since been shut down by the Labour government, along with other Afghan immigration routes, leaving many vulnerable individuals with no legal means to seek refuge.
The secrecy surrounding the breach has drawn widespread criticism. Legal campaigners argue that the superinjunction was used not only to protect vulnerable Afghans but also to shield the government from political embarrassment. The length and scope of the injunction—the longest in British history—have been questioned, with some suggesting it inadvertently increased the data's value to the Taliban and delayed necessary public scrutiny and parliamentary oversight.
Journalist Dan Sabbagh of The Guardian highlighted the extraordinary lengths the government went to conceal the breach, noting that "a real, massive commitment was being agreed in order to conceal the fact of the error." He pointed out that the decision to keep the scandal secret extended across multiple cabinet meetings and involved expanding costly resettlement schemes, all hidden from Parliament, the press, and the public.
The human cost of the breach has been devastating. Afghans named in the leak have faced Taliban retaliation, with some killed and others forced into hiding. One interpreter told The Guardian, "It felt like my blood had turned to ice" upon learning his name was leaked, while another expressed shame for putting his family at risk for a foreign power. The leak has also compromised the safety of British veterans and intelligence personnel, raising fears about national security and the integrity of intelligence operations.
The scandal has reignited debates about accountability and trust in government. Brian Monteith, a former member of the Scottish and European parliaments, criticized the cover-up as a breach of public trust and a symptom of a political culture that prioritizes secrecy over responsibility. He contrasted the leniency shown to officials involved in other security lapses—such as Angus Lapsley, who left classified documents at a bus stop but was later appointed Britain’s permanent representative to NATO—with the harsher treatment of others, highlighting inconsistencies in handling security failures.
Opposition leader Keir Starmer has called for serious questions to be answered by former Conservative ministers, while the MoD has pledged full support for the ISC inquiry and stated it will "robustly defend" against any legal claims or compensation demands, which it describes as "hypothetical." The government’s reluctance to proactively offer compensation to those affected has also drawn criticism.
As the ISC prepares to delve into the intelligence community’s role in this debacle, the British public is left grappling with the implications of a breach that exposed not only personal data but also the fragility of democratic oversight. The case underscores the challenges of balancing national security with transparency and the vital importance of holding governments accountable when failures occur.
