Explosive new leaks explain why the UK government quietly rewrote its own code of conduct

Theresa May
Support us and go ad-free

Explosive new leaks may explain why the UK’s Conservative-led government quietly rewrote its own Ministerial Code.

The government removed wording from the code that explicitly said ministers had a duty to comply with international law.

Within days of it trying to defend that decision in the High Court, the Intercept published an exposé. It revealed that Saudi Arabia had launched an airstrike against a family with nine children, which experts say shows “clear violations” of international law.

The UK government has staff working in Saudi Arabia’s headquarters, where its targeting rooms are located. They are ‘liaising‘ with the authoritarian kingdom on its bombing campaign in Yemen. At the time of writing, the Saudi-led coalition had just launched an airstrike near a public hospital, reportedly killing around 26 people.

Above international law?

The Gulf Center for Human Rights (GCHR) brought a case against Theresa May and Cabinet Office minister David Lidington over the code change in the High Court on 25 July. The rewrite, which occurred in 2015, removed certain references to a minister’s duties. It originally read:

[there is an] overarching duty on ministers to comply with the law including international law and treaty obligations and to uphold the administration of justice and to protect the integrity of public life.

But the government shortened it to say there is only an:

Read on...

Support us and go ad-free

overarching duty on ministers to comply with the law and to protect the integrity of public life.

At the time, a Cabinet Office spokesperson said the changes brought it in line with the civil service code. They also claimed the “law” referenced in the revised version includes international law.

The High Court reached a verdict on 1 August. It ruled that ministers’ “overarching” duty still includes compliance with international law and treaty obligations despite the government removing wording to that effect.

Strike first. Proof later.

The UK, along with the US, is complicit in the Yemen war. As well as having staff deployed for “liaison” in Saudi Arabia’s headquarters, it’s also providing “advice, information and assistance” to the country. Meanwhile, the UK government is arming Saudi Arabia to the back teeth. It’s approved at least £4.6bn of arms sales to the country since it began bombing Yemen in 2015.

Reports of civilian casualities in the assault are common. But the Intercept‘s exposé gives a rare insight into why that’s the case. Based on a US intelligence report seen by the outlet, it appears the Saudi military targeted a family, with nine children, on 14 May. Its drones had been surveilling the two tents the Maswadahs were living in close to a cliff in Saada prior to the attack.

According to the US report, the drones identified tents and “hot spots” – an indication people are present. But military officers watching the footage saw “no personnel or vehicles visible, nor any other intelligence information about the location”.

The officer in charge, however, ordered the strike anyway – even though he didn’t see the supposed target with his own eyes. The duty officers described the scene to him on the phone because he wasn’t there. Exactly who carried out the strike is unknown, as the Saudi-led coalition includes multiple countries.

Thankfully, the strike was a failure. The bomb missed the family “by about 30 meters”, according to the US report. Abdullah Maswadah and his family have since moved into caves, hoping that will be safer. He says:

The kids burst into tears when they hear the sound [of planes].

“Definitely a violation”

Clearly, seeing a couple of tents and indications of people present is not enough ‘evidence’ to justify an airstrike. As international law expert Ioannis Kalpouzos told the Intercept:

Beyond viewing the tents and the hot spots, if no intelligence was ordered to determine if these were military targets, then this is definitely a violation of the principle of precaution. This is the obligation to take all necessary measures to distinguish between civilians and combatants and to minimise incidental loss of civilian life

If the UK was a civilised country, this incident alone would lead to the suspension of arms sales to Saudi Arabia. It would also lead to the suspension of any member of government who has tied the country closer to Saudi Arabia and its murderous war.

But no. Instead, the UK government has been busy changing codes in a way that makes it less clear what culpability it has in atrocities abroad.

Get Involved!

Support Campaign Against Arms Trade in its legal fight against arms sales to Saudi Arabia.

Join The Canary if you appreciate the work we do.

Featured image via Number 10 – Flickr

Support us and go ad-free

We need your help to keep speaking the truth

Every story that you have come to us with; each injustice you have asked us to investigate; every campaign we have fought; each of your unheard voices we amplified; we do this for you. We are making a difference on your behalf.

Our fight is your fight. You’ve supported our collective struggle every time you gave us a like; and every time you shared our work across social media. Now we need you to support us with a monthly donation.

We have published nearly 2,000 articles and over 50 films in 2021. And we want to do this and more in 2022 but we don’t have enough money to go on at this pace. So, if you value our work and want us to continue then please join us and be part of The Canary family.

In return, you get:

* Advert free reading experience
* Quarterly group video call with the Editor-in-Chief
* Behind the scenes monthly e-newsletter
* 20% discount in our shop

Almost all of our spending goes to the people who make The Canary’s content. So your contribution directly supports our writers and enables us to continue to do what we do: speaking truth, powered by you. We have weathered many attempts to shut us down and silence our vital opposition to an increasingly fascist government and right-wing mainstream media.

With your help we can continue:

* Holding political and state power to account
* Advocating for the people the system marginalises
* Being a media outlet that upholds the highest standards
* Campaigning on the issues others won’t
* Putting your lives central to everything we do

We are a drop of truth in an ocean of deceit. But we can’t do this without your support. So please, can you help us continue the fight?

The Canary Support us

Comments are closed