Hamas files challenge to overturn UK terror designation

On Wednesday, April 9, the Islamic Resistance Movement, Hamas, submitted a formal legal application to the UK Home Secretary seeking removal from the country’s list of proscribed terrorist organizations. The application was filed through the London-based law firm Riverway Law.

The legal challenge is brought on behalf of Dr. Mousa Abu Marzouk, Head of International Relations and the Legal Office of Hamas’ Political Bureau. The submission, exceeding 100 pages, presents a detailed argument against the UK’s designation of Hamas as a terrorist organization. It draws on the expertise of 20 scholars from diverse fields, including Professor John Dugard, a former ad hoc judge of the International Court of Justice. 

History of the designation

In March 2001, under the Terrorism Act 2000, the UK proscribed the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, the military wing of Hamas, as a terrorist organization. Hamas’s political wing remained legal until November 26, 2021, when the UK government extended the ban to include Hamas in its entirety. Then-Home Secretary Priti Patel justified the move by claiming that it was no longer possible to differentiate between the two arms of the organization and cited Hamas’s “significant terrorist capability.” The full proscription criminalized any form of support for Hamas, including wearing its insignia, organizing meetings, or expressing public endorsement.

Speaking to Mondoweiss, Riverway Law director and lead solicitor Fahad Ansari criticized the political motivations behind the proscription.

“For over 20 years, the British government recognized a clear distinction between Hamas’s political and military wings. In fact, just months before the proscription, the UK was encouraging the formation of a Hamas-Fatah unity government,” he said. “Then came a politically compromised Home Secretary, Priti Patel, previously dismissed by Prime Minister Theresa May for holding unauthorized meetings with Israeli officials, including Benjamin Netanyahu, who abruptly moved to proscribe Hamas in its entirety, despite no change in circumstances.”

Ansari argued that Patel’s decision effectively sidelined the UK in Palestinian diplomacy, as British officials can no longer engage with Hamas, which remains the de facto government in Gaza.

The legal argument 

In its legal application to drop the designation, Hamas presents three main grounds: first, that the proscription violates Britain’s obligations under international law not to be complicit in genocide and to uphold the dignity and rights of the Palestinian people; second, that it breaches the rights to freedom of expression and assembly and is applied in a politically discriminatory manner; and third, that the proscription is disproportionate. Hamas argues that it is the only effective military force resisting what it describes as ongoing acts of genocide against Palestinians and that banning it undermines the Palestinian people’s right to self-defense and self-determination.

The submission contends that the UK has a legal duty not to support or enable Israel’s occupation, and further emphasizes that Hamas neither operates in the UK nor poses any threat to its national security. The application also challenges frameworks that prioritize “Israel’s right to exist” when used to deny Palestinians their right to self-determination, including by force. Moreover, it argues that the ban has led to the suppression of free speech, particularly targeting journalists, academics, and activists critical of Israel or perceived to support Hamas, amounting to discriminatory treatment based on political opinion. 

However, most intriguing, the legal application makes a moral case to the Home Secretary over Britain’s role in the colonization of Palestine. In the case application’s introduction, Hamas and its legal team reference the British State’s colonial past and contribution in “colonization, ethnic cleansing and apartheid in Palestine from the Balfour Declaration of 1917 to the Nakba of 1948 and all the way up to its present complicity in the ongoing genocide.” 

The application continues, “It has done so pursuant to its enduring policy of Zionism, an ideology that is the root of the violence in historic Palestine.” Hamas, therefore, makes a moral claim, offering a “historic opportunity” to the Home Secretary “to depart from the British State’s morally and legally indefensible policy of siding with the Zionist oppressor against the oppressed people of Palestine.” 

In Abu Marzouk’s witness statement, he claims that “despite the British state being the architect of our suffering through its collaboration with the Zionist project for over a century, I am inviting you to reverse that policy today.”  

Why now? 

When asked about the timing of the request, Ansari told Mondoweiss that while only the client can speak to their political strategy, it’s “obvious to any neutral observer that Zionism has seemingly entered into a state of terminal crisis” as Israel is being charged with genocide before the International Court of Justice and its leaders have been indicted for war crimes. Therefore, he argued, for any discussion about the future of the region, “it is imperative that all major protagonists in the region are involved.” 

It is important to note that this application has been in the works for over a year. In an interview with Mondoweiss, Asim Qureshi, a consultant for the case, made it clear that the client’s imperative is to expose what the “fundamental nature of this genocide is” which he states, “is one that is a continuation of colonization as the Zionist state is the last bastion of European colonization alive in the world today.” 

Qureshi said that Hamas understands that “resistance has been framed politically as terrorism but that is for them, a political categorization that does not adequately reflect what the resistance tries to achieve,” which he says “uncovers the unlawful nature of the Zionist state.” 

“Hamas has instructed them to proceed in an international forum to declare what they’re actually fighting against and the best way to do that is using a legal framework to tell the world who they are and what they’re fighting for,” Qureshi told Mondoweiss. 

Throughout the legal application and the witness statements made by Abu Marzouk, one of the leading factors for pushing this effort of de-proscription is maintaining international support by challenging the very nature of the criminalization of Hamas within the West, and the UK in particular. 

“I have noticed from social media over the past 15 months that an increasing number of people living in Britain have become more sympathetic towards Hamas and our liberation struggle,” Abu Marzouk states in his witness statement. “It is alarming that so many journalists, activists, and students are being criminalized for expressing support for a movement that is protecting its people from genocide. We are concerned at the lack of freedom of speech in Britain as a result of its long-standing policy of support for Zionism.” 

Ansari says that this criminalization should be a concern to all. “We need to be able to have mature and nuanced conversations about the question of Palestine,” Ansari told Mondoweiss and referenced how the UK took a similar approach of similar designations with the ANC in South Africa and the IRA in the north of Ireland. “The application submitted argues that such measures only served to perpetuate the conflict and killing and it was actually genuine engagement and dialogue that led to peaceful political settlements in both parts of the world. Our client hopes to achieve the same in Palestine.” 

It is clear that another reason for the application is the the suffocating political and diplomatic situation that Hamas finds itself in, as it is unable to lead successful negotiations, ceasefire talks, or conversations about its sovereignty independently. Hamas understands that both the designation and its removal are political decisions.

“More than anything else,” Ansari states, “it revolves around the political climate both in the UK and overseas.” 

And there is precedent for such an application. Ansari tells Mondoweiss that then Home Secretary Jack Straw admitted in 2006 that the MEK (People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran) was proscribed in March 2001 at the request of Iran during a period when the UK government thought it could engage what was considered to be a moderate Iranian president. Similarly, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group was de-proscribed after the revolution that overthrew the Gaddhafi regime — primarily because members of that group, who had been imprisoned by the UK at Libya’s request, were now in positions of governance. 

“It is therefore imperative to understand the politics that were in play when Hamas was initially proscribed and question whether that was legally sound and whether it remains legally sound today,” Ansari says. 

Hamas’ legal case is also intentionally poking at the double standards of the UK government. If the wide definition of “terrorism” covers all groups that use violence for political objectives, then that definition includes the Ukrainian Army, the British armed forces, and the Israeli armed forces. “Of course, not all groups are proscribed,” states the legal application. “Ultimately, that is a question of discretion for the Secretary of State.” 

The legal team at Riverway Law took on the case without receiving any compensation, emphasizing that the proscription itself makes it illegal to accept payment from organizations on the UK’s banned list. “As lawyers, we believe in the rule of law and due process,” they stated. Although it is technically possible to seek a license from the Treasury to receive payment in such cases, the team chose not to pursue that route, explaining that they “did not want that to operate as an obstacle to our client securing the legal representation to which all clients are entitled.” Additionally,  all 20 expert witnesses who contributed reports to the application did so without payment. Ansari told Mondoweiss that this collective effort “evidences a shared desire for a path forward amid the very dark times we are witnessing.”