EXCLUSIVE: Nigel Farage has blasted the ECtHR as “outrageous” after judges told the Government to justify stripping ISIS-bride Shamima Begin of her citizenship.

Nigel Farage has blasted the European Court of Human Rights for its “outrageous” intervention over the case of ISIS-bride Shamima Begum. The Reform leader was speaking after the Daily Express exclusively revealed that the Strasbourg-based court formally told the British Home Office that it would need to justify its decision to strip the Islamic State fanatic of her citizenship.

Ms Begum, who was born in London, travelled to Syria aged 15 and joined the terrorist organisation Islamic State (ISIS) in 2015. She then married an Islamic convert, Yago Riedijk, and saw her citizenship revoked in 2019 by Sajid Javid, the Conservative Home Secretary at the time.

Farage slams court over Begum intervention (Image: Getty)

However, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) suggested it had concerns that the Home Office was using the threat to deprive people of their citizenship as a “punishment” in certain cases, and asked the British Government whether or not it had “duties or obligations” to Begum as a possible “victim of trafficking”.

Today, speaking exclusively to the Express, Nigel Farage launched a blistering attack against the court, saying: “It’s outrageous that a major decision like this of national interest can be made in the ECHR – it shows why we must leave.”

And he took aim at Begum, stating: “She must not be allowed back.”

The latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster Invalid email

We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and 3rd parties based on our understanding. You can unsubscribe at any time. Read our Privacy Policy

Shamima Begum in Syria (Image: -)

Ms Begum, who lost a series of appeals in the United Kingdom, is currently living in the Syrian al-Roj detention camp, which is home to thousands of former jihadists. The European Court’s staggering intervention has once again ignited a furious debate over whether a foreign court should have any remit over British laws.

The Home Office stated that the Government will “always protect the UK and its citizens”, with a spokesman adding that Shamima Begum “posed a national security threat”, which is why she “had her British citizenship revoked and is unable to return to the UK”.

They added: “We will robustly defend any decision made to protect our national security.”

Yesterday, the Daily Express reported that Ms Begum’s lawyers had called the move by the ECtHR an “unprecedented opportunity”.

The communication between the Court and the Home Office will sound alarm bells that the ISIS-bride could be allowed to re-enter the United Kingdom, despite successive Governments stating that they would not reinstate her citizenship.

Former Conservative Home Secretary Sajid Javid’s decision to revoke her citizenship was upheld by the UK’s Supreme Court. Yet, despite this, the ECtHR has still issued the intervention, which was welcomed by Begum’s lawyers.

The ECtHR asked: “Was the deprivation of citizenship analogous to a criminal prosecution? Was it a ‘penalty’ within the meaning of Article 26 of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings?”

They also asked the Home Office: “For the purposes of the Article 4 complaints made in the application, was the applicant at all material times within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention?”

And officials have been asked: “Did the Secretary of State for the Home Department’s decision to deprive the applicant of her citizenship engage her rights under Article 4 of the Convention?

“Did the Secretary of State have a positive obligation, by virtue of Article 4 of the Convention, to consider whether the applicant had been a victim of trafficking, and whether any duties or obligations to her flowed from that fact, before deciding to deprive her of her citizenship?”