To the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism; the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression; the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association; the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers and the Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy

We would like to sincerely thank you for your letter to the UK government concerning the case of Fahad Ansari.

Your decision to intervene is extremely important, not only in drawing attention to the serious issues raised by this case, but also in affirming the broader principles at stake: the independence of the legal profession, the confidentiality of lawyer-client communications, and the need to protect lawyers working on sensitive national security and human rights matters.

We are pleased that you have acted after we approached you with this particular case. Through our joint communication to the relevant Special Rapporteurs in September 2025 and our advocacy efforts at the UN, including the Pro-Palestinians under Attack side event held in Geneva the same month, we sought to highlight the growing pressure faced by lawyers, civil society actors, academics, and others who express solidarity with Palestine; all issues on which IHRC has dedicated two much-welcomed reports, titled The Authoritarian Drift of the European Democratic State: the Crackdown on Pro-Palestine Movements-Part 1 and Part 2. Mr Ansari’s case is the proverbial tip of the iceberg.

In this context, the case of Fahad Ansari stands as a particularly serious example of the risks faced by legal and other professionals/campaigners whose work touches on politically sensitive and highly contested issues.

As you know, Mr. Ansari is an experienced solicitor at Duncan Lewis Solicitors, specialising in national security and human rights cases. On 6 August 2025, he was stopped by police at Holyhead Port under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 while returning from a family holiday in Ireland. During the stop he was questioned for around three hours and his work mobile phone was seized before being downloaded and copied by police. The concern, as we have set out, is that this was not an ordinary police stop, but an action taken against a lawyer who had previously represented Hamas in a de-proscription challenge.

Before joining Duncan Lewis as a consultant, Mr. Ansari had been principal solicitor at Riverway Law, which acted for Hamas pro bono in order to avoid breaching sanctions against the Palestinian organisation. After the application was submitted, shadow home secretary Robert Jenrick and the Campaign Against Antisemitism reported him to the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Mr. Jenrick described Riverway’s role as “sickening,” adding that it was “no surprise the firm specialises in immigration cases.” Mr. Ansari is now challenging the decision to detain and question him, as well as the seizure of his phone and the retention and attempted examination of a copy of its contents.

The concerns we have raised with you remain deeply serious. The UN itself noted that it had received information concerning “the alleged harassment, intimidation, and the misuse of counter-terrorism powers against Mr. Fahad Ansari, in apparent retaliation for carrying out his lawful professional functions as a lawyer.” It further warned that the reported measures, including “politicised vilification, regulatory pressure, detention under schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000, and the seizure and downloading of a work device containing legally privileged material,” raise serious concerns about “the independent exercise of the legal profession and the confidentiality of lawyer–client communications.”

You also rightly observed that such measures may “criminalize, stigmatize and have chilling effects against lawyers and legal associations carrying out lawful work in national security and counter-terrorism matters,” including work related to “the human rights compliance of proscription regimes, including the right of proscribed entities to seek delisting.” This is precisely why we believe this case has significance well beyond Mr. Ansari himself.

IHRC considers the government’s response to your report wholly inadequate. Far from addressing the substance of the concerns raised, it leaves the key questions unanswered and does not engage meaningfully with the serious implications of the case. The reply relies on broad assurances and procedural deflections, but it fails to explain the legal basis of the measures taken, the safeguards applied to privileged material, or the reasons behind the approach made to Mr. Ansari after his release. In our view, this is not a substantive response to the UN’s concerns, but a largely evasive one that does little to dispel the serious doubts raised by the original communication.

We would therefore be grateful to know what further steps you are considering in light of the government’s response. In particular, we would welcome any information on whether you intend to pursue the matter further, what additional actions you may have in mind, and how our organisation might be able to assist your work. This is especially important given that Mr. Ansari’s hearing is scheduled to take place early in May this year.

We remain committed to supporting your efforts and to working closely with you to ensure that the concerns raised in this case are properly addressed.

Yours sincerely

Massoud Shadjareh

Chair

IHRC