Everyone has been very quick off the mark to condemn the Metropolitan Police for eavesdropping on meetings between Sadiq Khan, the Labour MP for Tooting, and a constituent, one Babar Ahmad. These took place while the latter was held on remand in HMP Woodhill pending extradition proceedings to the US for allegedly running a website that raised funds for the Taleban in the 1990s.
Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, who has responsibility for prisons, has ordered a departmental inquiry into the surveillance of his former PPS. And many have asked where this leaves the Wilson Doctrine – formulated by the then Prime Minister in 1966 – that the security services should not bug the telephones of MPs?
Mr Straw, who admits he knows little of the facts of the case, has been swift to judge the Met. But why does he not let the system take its course? If Mr Khan (who is no shrinking violet) wants redress, he need look no further than the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (RIPA) regime set up in 2000 by Mr Straw when he was Home Secretary – including the Investigatory Powers Tribunal.
Nor is it clear if there really has been a violation of the Wilson Doctrine. After all, the doctrine largely related to routine surveillance on the basis of political views. Is it not likelier that Ahmad was the real focus of the Met’s attention – and that Mr Khan was merely caught up in the net?
Is it really possible that officers did not obtain authorisation either from their Assistant Commissioner, or even the Home Secretary – as stipulated under the RIPA codes of practice? RIPA insists upon proportionality, which includes collateral effects upon third parties.
Advertisement
It is not only the Met that deserves scrutiny here. Mr Khan has spent a very considerable amount of time on this case. No doubt the MP concurs with Babar Ahmad’s family, who yesterday reiterated that he is a very nice man. “He likes football, he enjoys fish and chips, he has English white friends, etc,” they stated.
Mr Khan’s constituents may take another view on whether Babar Ahmad is worth this investment. As a former chairman of the Muslim Council of Britain’s legal committee, Mr Khan remains the most Islamist-friendly of MPs. Compared with other Labour Muslim MPs – such as Khalid Mahmood – he has too often catered to the “victim mentality” in the community.
But Mr Khan is also highly ambitious. Is this really the cause for which he wants to be remembered? And will he continue to dance like a cat on a hot tin roof when the Government pushes for a further extension in police powers under the new counter-terrorism Bill?
Dean Godson is Research Director of Policy Exchange