Opinion: MPs and journalists clash over secrecy in Afghan data breach fallout
Former Defence Secretary Ben Wallace says he didn’t want the 2022 Afghan resettlement data leak to be covered up by a superinjunction. But new claims posted on Bluesky by journalist Lewis Goodall suggest the government actively supported and repeatedly upheld the court-imposed gag, raising questions about transparency and accountability at the heart of Whitehall.
Details are still emerging about the 2022 data leak where a UK Ministry of Defence official mistakenly emailed a spreadsheet containing personal details (names, phone numbers, sometimes addresses) of roughly 18,700 Afghan applicants and their families.
This accidental breach of data, which put thousands of Afghans at risk of being found by the Taliban, sparked a covert resettlement scheme that was subject to a ‘superinjunction’ and then covered up for three years by the previous Conservative government.
Wallace claims that he applied for an injunction, but not a superinjunction and didn’t know why it became one. He told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that the Ministry of Defence applied for a standard injunction to prevent potentially dangerous details about the leak being made public — but he claims he does not know why the court turned it into a superinjunction, a rare and more extreme legal tool which not only blocks publication but forbids acknowledging the injunction even exists.
However, journalist Lewis Goodall experienced things differently. According to his Bluesky post, “At any point they could have dropped the super element and even maintain the injunction. That was discussed in court. They elected not to do so.”
I believe these counterclaims have led to a major distrust in Ben Wallace’s words, now seemingly a useless facade to comfort Conservative voters that their government didn’t do anything wrong.
Despite eventually lifting the superinjunction that concealed the Afghan data leak and secret resettlement efforts, Defence Secretary John Healey is now facing scrutiny over the delay in doing so. Goodall has credited Healey for ending what he called an “absurdity” — but also questioned why it took so long, and why action only followed legal pressure and a Court of Appeal ruling.
Making matters worse, the Afghan resettlement scheme has been closed — even though many Afghans are still in danger. Critics argue that by ending the scheme and maintaining silence for years, the government may have failed those it promised to protect. The Rimmer Review, which ultimately found no strong basis for the superinjunction, raises further questions: if the legal justification was so weak, how was such extreme secrecy sustained?
Healey may have done the right thing in the end, but only after pressure from courts and campaigners. For the Afghan families caught in limbo, that delay mattered. The bigger question now isn’t just how this secrecy was allowed to last — it’s what other stories like theirs are still being kept quiet.