Shamima Begum and other ISIS detainees could be freed from detention in Syria amid fierce fighting nearby, it is feared.
Ms Begum, 26, who was stripped of her British citizenship after leaving London to join the terror group in 2015, is currently held at al-Roj – a filthy, violent camp in north-east Syria.
The facility is controlled by the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), who also oversee several other camps housing more than 9,000 ISIS fighters and around 40,000 women and children.
The SDF has now lost almost all of its territory to forces loyal to Syria’s president Ahmed al-Sharaa.
But while both groups signed a ceasefire yesterday, fresh fighting broke out today around three SDF-controlled detention facilities: al-Aqtan prison near Raqqa, a prison in Deir al-Zour and another in the town of al-Shadadi.
The SDF said it was trying to transfer ISIS prisoners to ‘safe locations’, but had currently been unable to do so, while footage appeared to show dozens of detainees escaping from Deir al-Zour.
Kamaran Palani, from the London School of Economics Middle East Centre, said the potential release of ISIS detainees could see the group return to posing a ‘huge regional threat’.
Shamima Begum was stripped of her British citizenship after leaving London to join ISIS
Syrian government troops celebrating today after clearing the SDF from Raqqa
The SDF described the unrest as a ‘highly dangerous development’.
‘The level of threat is escalating significantly, amid attempts by these factions to reach the prison and seize control of it,’ the group said in a statement.
‘Such actions could lead to serious security repercussions that threaten stability and open the door to a return of chaos and terrorism.’
Today’s developments follow renewed concerns Ms Begum could be allowed to return to the UK after European judges came to the ISIS bride’s defence.
The Londoner was 15 when she and two friends travelled from Bethnal Green to Syria to join Islamic State.
Ms Begum, who married an ISIS fighter and had children, was found in a Syrian refugee camp in 2019 and her citizenship was immediately revoked by then-home secretary Sajid Javid on national security grounds, kickstarting her lengthy legal challenge.
But earlier this month, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) formally asked the Home Office whether it broke human rights and anti-trafficking laws – after Begum was stripped of her UK citizenship.
The latest intervention has sparked a major backlash, with Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood vowing to defend the Government’s decision at the time.
Conservative MP and Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp said he would ask Ms Mahmood for guarantees in the House of Commons that Begum will not be allowed back.
Syrian government forces gathering near al-Aqtan prison near Raqqa, where they have been besieging SDF forces
Ms Begum is still living at the al-Roj camp in northern Syria (pictured in 2021)
He also urged Ms Mahmood to fight the case ‘tooth and nail’.
Mr Philp called ISIS a ‘violent terrorist regime who brutally murdered their opponents and raped thousands of women and girls’.
Ms Begum lost an appeal in February 2023 against the decision to revoke her citizenship after the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) ruled this was lawful.
She then lost a Court of Appeal bid in February 2024, before she was most recently denied the chance to challenge it at the Supreme Court in August 2024.
However, Ms Begum’s lawyers warned at the time that they could still take her case to the European Court of Human Rights – which they later did.
The Home Office has now been told by the European court to answer four questions about her citizenship.
One asks: ‘Has there been a violation of the applicant’s rights under Article 4 of the Convention by virtue of the decision to deprive her of her citizenship?’
Another says: ‘For the purposes of the Article 4 complaints made in the application, was the applicant at all material times within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention?’
Article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights relates to ‘protection of property’, while Article 4 relates to ‘freedom from slavery and forced labour’.
A further question asks: ‘Did the Secretary of State for the Home Department’s decision to deprive the applicant of her citizenship engage her rights under Article 4 of the Convention?’