What is the leaked Afghan data list and why does it matter?

The leak of the so-called “kill list” put potentially thousands of Afghans at risk and forced the government into resettling nationals to a greater extent than planned.

The government spent two years using an unprecedented injunction to prevent the public from learning about the mishap, LBC has reported this week.

An estimated £7billion has been spent on mopping up after the mistake, with a large chunk of that being spent on resettling Afghanistan nationals.

Parliament has, however, not had a chance to scrutinise the spending, with only a select few knowing the injunction.

While the events happened under the previous administration, the Labour government is now under pressure to guarantee that such an event does not happen again.

Sir Keir Starmer took the opportunity at PMQs on Wednesday to blame the previous Tory administration.

The prime minister said: "Yesterday, the defence secretary set out the full extent of the failings that we inherited – a major data breach, a superinjunction, a secret route that has already cost hundreds of millions of pounds.

"Ministers who served under the party opposite have serious questions to answer about how this was ever allowed to happen.”

Here is how the calamity has unfolded and how it has been reported.

Read more: MoD blunder leads to £7billion government cover-up of Taliban 'kill-list'

What happened?

In February 2022, under the Boris Johnson-led Conservative government, an unnamed Royal Marine working in UK Special Forces HQ, in Regent's Park Barracks, sent a spreadsheet to trusted Afghan colleagues.

The sender had thought the list contained details of 150 individuals who had applied for asylum in the UK under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (ARAP).

The scheme is set up to offer sanctuary in the UK to Afghans who supported British military operations during the 20-year war in Afghanistan.

However, the file contained the names, contact details, and, in some cases, family members of, not 150, but 18,714 Afghan asylum seekers. When family members are included, the number of people potentially put at risk rises to around 100,000.

The Taliban, which has retaken control in Afghanistan after a long conflict, considers those listed to be traitors to its regime and is reportedly intent on hunting down those included.

It has not been reported how the list came to fall into the wrong hands.

Why did the Ministry of Defence impose the injunction?

The injunction was originally presented as a short-term emergency measure to protect lives while the government identified and helped those most at risk.

But subsequent hearings revealed that the number of people the MoD planned on assisting was just 200 individuals, plus their dependents - a fraction of those affected.

Eventually, though there is some dispute about the figures, at least 6,900 people have now been brought over as a result of the breach.

The News Agents’ and LBC presenter Lewis Goodall had been alerted to the issue but had been barred from reporting on it, or even telling his editor, as the Ministry of Defence sought and was granted a contra mundum superinjunction.

This is a rare legal order that not only stopped publication of the story but also prevented anyone from revealing that an injunction even existed, something that was described in court as “constitutionally unprecedented”.

Court hearings were held in secret, with even media lawyers excluded.

How did the story come out?

The superinjunction was finally lifted on Tuesday following a ruling by Mr Justice Chamberlain, who had earlier warned the secrecy had effectively put British democracy “into cold storage”.

The story was first reported in a special episode of The News Agents podcast. It showed that secrecy was maintained far longer than journalists believed was necessary or justified.

Parliament was kept in the dark throughout, knowledge of the injunction was limited to only a handful of senior ministers including — the prime minister, defence secretary, the then-shadow defence secretary, and the speaker of the House of Commons.

What happened next?

The consequences of the list being leaked could be potentially deadly, with the Taliban reportedly stating that it considers the list of names to be a “kill list” which it has been using to hunt down its opposition. There have even been fears that riots could break out across the UK.

The news of the secrecy has led to a debate as to what should be in the public domain.

Defence secretary John Healey refused to say if anyone had been sacked over the breach. He added, however, the person involved in the leak is “no longer doing the same job”.

Former defence secretary Ben Wallace, who was in post from 2019 to 2023, said on Wednesday that he will not apologise for the injunction.

He said: “We applied for a four month normal injunction, not a super injunction.

“I took a decision at the time that my priority was to protect the lives and welfare of those Afghans who had in some cases made many sacrifices or indeed sacrificed parts of their family to protect British forces.

“These were people potentially eligible under the Arap scheme and that if the reporting had happened quickly, it could have potentially allowed the Taliban to make moves on these individuals.

"And so we needed time and we needed space to find out, investigate where this list had gone, whether it had actually got to the Taliban and whether we could get out many of those people.”

What have people said?

As well as Sir Keir’s highly critical comments of the government of the time, there has been a general condemning across the board of what was done.

Former Tory Brexit secretary Sir David Davis wrote for LBC: “That is not openness. It is a deliberate evasion of democratic scrutiny.”

The backbench MP for Goole and Pocklington added: “The notion that a Western government may have directly caused a data breach endangering thousands of our allies is shocking.

“Any civilised nation should recoil at the thought. The Government quite rightly pledged to relocate those affected, along with their families, to the UK.

“However, when mistakes are made, it’s important they are admitted to and resolved in an open and transparent manner.”