Over 100 public figures denounce UK for detaining solicitor Fahad Ansari under terror powers
More than one hundred public figures from across Britain’s legal, academic and civic circles have signed a statement condemning what they describe as an escalating campaign of harassment by UK authorities against Irish Muslim solicitor Fahad Ansari. The signatories accuse the government of politically targeting Ansari merely for performing his professional duties as a lawyer.
Ansari, a senior solicitor known for his work on national security and human rights cases, was detained on 6 August 2025 under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act while returning from a family holiday in Ireland. He was stopped at Holyhead port by police, held for almost three hours, and questioned about his religious beliefs, mosque attendance, and views on Palestine. Officers seized his work phone containing legally privileged client information, while his wife and children were left waiting in their car throughout the ordeal.
The incident is believed to be the first recorded instance of Schedule 7 powers being used against a practising solicitor in this way. The measure allows border officials to stop, question, and search individuals without any requirement for suspicion. Rights groups and international observers have long argued that the power lacks sufficient safeguards and has been disproportionately used against Muslims and political activists.
Embed from Getty Images
The statement in support of Ansari includes the signatures of more than a hundred professionals across different sectors, among them Emeritus Professor Avi Shlaim of the University of Oxford, Dr Asim Qureshi of CAGE International, Massoud Shadjareh of the Islamic Human Rights Commission, journalist Jonathan Cook, and Imam Shakeel Begg of Lewisham Islamic Centre. Numerous barristers and solicitors from leading human rights chambers also backed the call.
Their collective declaration describes the detention as part of a broader pattern of state intimidation. “Fahad was immediately subjected to smears by senior politicians and the media, including being conflated with his clients, and he received hundreds of abusive calls and death threats,” the statement reads. It calls on the British authorities to end what they describe as harassment and to allow Ansari to carry out his professional duties without fear of reprisal.
Ansari’s record in public interest litigation is extensive. Earlier this year, he successfully persuaded the Supreme Court to rule that the government had acted unlawfully by denying citizenship to a child whose father had been stripped of nationality. In April, he submitted an official application to the Home Secretary seeking the de-proscription of Hamas under Section 4 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which provides a legal process for challenging the ban of designated organisations. Following that application, he became the target of criticism from politicians and commentators, many of whom questioned his motives.
According to his supporters, the timing of his detention and the seizure of his phone were not coincidental. They argue it reflects a wider campaign to silence those who pursue legal challenges against controversial government policies, particularly those related to Palestine or Muslim civil rights. Human rights advocates say the use of counter-terrorism powers against a solicitor is a dangerous precedent that could undermine the independence of the legal profession.
The statement also highlights longstanding concerns over Schedule 7, a power criticised by the United Nations and successive independent reviewers of counter-terrorism legislation for being overly broad and discriminatory. It notes that the provision allows police to detain individuals for hours and access personal and professional data without judicial oversight, effectively enabling fishing expeditions in the name of national security.
Ansari has since filed for a judicial review against the Chief Constable of North Wales Police and the Home Secretary, challenging the legality of his detention and the seizure of his property. His case has become a rallying point for civil liberties advocates who warn that such actions could chill dissent and erode the rule of law. The signatories conclude by urging the government to respect the principles of justice, transparency and equality before the law, insisting that no lawyer should face punishment for defending human rights or representing unpopular causes.