The UK granted asylum to one person along with 22 family members, most of whom are in their teens, putting significant pressure on the system.
The British government is now facing mounting scrutiny after it emerged that a confidential military data breach led to the admission of thousands of Afghan nationals into the United Kingdom—many of them extended family members—under emergency asylum measures. The revelation has raised serious concerns about the strain on public resources and the potential risk to national security.
Following the leak of a classified list in 2022, which contained the names of nearly 19,000 Afghans who had applied to enter the UK after aiding British forces during the Afghanistan war, ministers scrambled to contain what has been described as one of the most damaging security lapses in British history. The applicants included members of Afghan special forces, placing them at high risk of Taliban reprisals.
Read Also:
UK offers asylum to 24,000 Afghans over data breach
Iran deports Afghans in mass exodus as deadline expires
Trump to pull nearly 1,660 Afghan refugees from flights, say US official, advocate
In response, the government established the Afghanistan Response Route in March 2023—an urgent resettlement program designed to airlift those affected by the breach to safety in the UK. However, new court documents—previously kept from public view by a government-imposed super-injunction—now reveal that the scope of the program expanded far beyond initial intentions.
According to sources in Whitehall, in at least one case, a single Afghan granted asylum was permitted to bring 22 family members, many of whom were teenagers. Others reportedly brought extended families “in the high teens,” placing unexpected pressure on accommodation and welfare systems. Defence officials were left scrambling to find housing, with one emergency proposal suggesting two military homes be merged to accommodate individual families.
The initial intention, according to defence ministers, was to limit resettlement to nuclear families. But this policy was repeatedly overruled by UK courts, citing obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. A pivotal decision by High Court judge Mrs Justice Yip in November 2023 expanded the definition of “family member,” stating that it need not be based on blood or legal ties. The ruling acknowledged cultural and contextual nuances in family structures, which significantly broadened eligibility.
Government sources say this shift dramatically altered projections. Documents show that only 10 percent of applicants’ extended family members were eligible under previous rules. Following the breach, officials now estimate that upwards of 55 percent—or approximately 12,500 individuals—could qualify, despite having been previously deemed ineligible. Only 2,200 of those family members had met the criteria before.
Compounding the issue, some insiders allege that criminal elements exploited the post-breach confusion to gain entry into the UK. Reports from Afghanistan suggest that former junior staff, including those accused of stealing from British bases or selling arms to the Taliban, entered Britain along with large family groups, while some genuine military allies were left behind.
Adding to the controversy is the secrecy surrounding the government’s response. A super-injunction was issued in September 2023, allegedly on the orders of then-Defence Secretary Sir Grant Shapps, to block public discussion of the fallout. The order remained in place until earlier this week, even though Shapps had reportedly won an appeal in May 2024 to keep it in force. On Friday, he claimed he was “surprised” the injunction had lasted so long, prompting accusations that he was attempting to “rewrite history.”
The developments have ignited political tension within Whitehall. Some cabinet ministers reportedly warned that the broadening of eligibility could lead to a surge in bogus asylum claims and pose long-term risks to national security.
The Ministry of Defence and Sir Grant Shapps were contacted for comment but did not respond by the time of publication.
