8 min read
Exclusive: Lord Hermer is a defendant in a civil suit he drafted and represented until weeks before the 2024 election, which implicates the previous Labour government in complicity in torture.
The Attorney General for England and Wales is a defendant in a major civil lawsuit from a Libyan civil war figure that he drafted and represented until just days before he joined the Cabinet.
The case, which alleges UK intelligence complicity in the 2007 torture of two individuals by Egyptian authorities, creates a significant conflict for the government’s top law officer.
By virtue of holding the office of Attorney General, Lord Hermer now stands as defendant in proceedings brought by his own former client, Mahdi Al Harati, a Libyan-Irish military commander who was previously designated by several Gulf states on a “terrorist” list. He denies any involvement in terrorism.
Al Harati is a key figure in the Libyan civil war who subsequently fought in Syria against Bashar Assad’s forces. He has been suing the British government since 2021 for complicity in his torture and that of another Irish-Libyan, Abuzid Elbuzidi. Only a few weeks prior to his appointment as Attorney General in July 2024, Lord Hermer was acting for the claimants against that same office, as well as the Foreign and Home Offices.
Al Harati alleges that the UK government passed on intelligence describing him as an Islamist extremist to the Libyan security service, which led to his detention and torture in Egypt.
The Particulars of Claim state the British Security Services “knew, or ought to have known there was a risk [intelligence] would have been obtained during interrogations in which torture was used.
The government has stated that due to constitutional rules under the Law Officers’ Convention, Lord Hermer cannot disclose whether he has formally recused himself from the case. However, the nature of the claim raises concern over a legal and political conflict of interest that undermines his authority as the top legal advisor to the government.
A source close to Hermer said: “Without commenting on individual cases, the government’s robust conflict process would clearly preclude Law Officers having any involvement in cases in which they were instructed for other parties prior to appointment.”
The litigation is being heard in the High Court of Justice and is currently subject to a Closed Material Procedure, which allows issues of national security to be dealt with in a closed hearing and can rely on the appointment of Special Advocates to relay information to claimants. This procedure was challenged by PoliticsHome, which has allowed for the release of details which have progressed behind closed doors for years.
The government neither confirmed nor denied the central claims of intelligence sharing. On claims of torture, the government put the claimants “to proof”, making no admissions on injury or mistreatment.
The Particulars of Claim state that the British government knowingly requested information on Al Harati, which would likely lead to his imprisonment and torture.
They claim the torture of Al Harati and Elbuzidi occurred against a backdrop of a thaw in relations after Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed in 1988 over Lockerbie in west Scotland, killing 270. Libyan intelligence agent Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was convicted over the bombing in 2001. Abu Agila Mas’ud Kheir Al-Marimi, a former colonel in the Libyan intelligence service, was charged by US authorities in 2020 over his alleged involvement.
The Particulars of Claim also state that British and Libyan security services traded information about the claimants throughout 2006 and 2007. This intelligence relied in part upon information gained during the Libyan Secret Service interrogation of Abdelhakim Belhadj, who received an apology from the UK government over complicity in his 2004 rendition from Thailand and torture. Hermer led the negotiating team in that case.
The Particulars claim that in negotiations between Sir Mark Allen and Moussa Koussa, senior British and Libyan intelligence officers were later implicated in Belhadj’s rendition and torture. In the negotiations, incentives, including a meeting between Blair and Gaddafi, were offered, which eventually came to pass a year later in 2004. Lord Hermer’s government colleague, Jonathan Powell, held meetings with Libya’s Foreign Minister during the bilateral summit.
It is also claimed that in the 2006-07 exchanges, the British Security Services provided photographs of Al Harati and listed several questions they wished the Libyans to put to detainees.
The claimants state that UK intelligence closely tracked their movements. Before the pair visited Egypt, the British Security Services notified their Libyan counterparts that they were people of interest. It is claimed that the Libyans tipped off the Egyptians, based on other examples of intelligence sharing between the states.
The claims, which are set to be judged upon in court, are yet to be established as findings of fact.
In its defence, the government will neither confirm nor deny whether any intelligence was provided or exchanged regarding the claimants but denies “that such injury, harm, loss and damage as the claimants may prove was caused, or contributed to, by any unlawful conduct on the part of [government departments], their servants or agents, whether as alleged or at all.”
Arrest and abuse
In August 2007, Al Harati was arrested by the Egyptian security services, blindfolded and interrogated. He was then held for two weeks at a detention facility, where he alleges that he could hear sounds of torture in nearby cells.
His submission to the court describes physically violent torture. He describes being electrocuted, beaten, being hit with a hard object on the head and pushed into metal doors.
It also describes mental abuse – threats, including rape, being made to his family members, being intentionally deprived of sleep and verbally abused. He also claims he was made to sign papers he could not see while blindfolded.
Mr Elbuzidi also made claims of physical and mental torture. Both claimed to have suffered sexual abuse.
During the interrogations, Al Harati claims to have been asked about individuals in Britain and Ireland, including about the questions British officials asked of the Libyans released to the court.
The two were subsequently taken to Cairo airport’s deportation centre, where they were told they could fly to Ireland if they bought their own ticket. It is claimed that Ireland’s embassy negotiated the release following contact from Mr Elbuzidi’s family.
Both claimants have reported cases of PTSD due to the abuse they suffered, and injuries from physical beatings and electrocutions.
In the Home Office’s own guidance from 2006, it notes that those with ties to radical Islam or political opposition groups were likely to be persecuted by Libya. The UK’s ambassador from the period acknowledged at the time the country had a “sorry record” on torture.
From Tripoli commander to “terrorist” designate
Al Harati’s remarkable political resume covers revolutionary military command in multiple major conflicts, a turn as Tripoli’s mayor and blacklisting by Gulf powers, all before his lawsuit against the British state.
His high-profile activism extends to the 2010 Gaza Freedom Flotilla, where he was a participant aboard the Mavi Marmara.
In Libya, during the civil war in which he gained his reputation, Al Harati was a dynamic revolutionary with ties to the West and a fluency with English that made him a popular interviewee for the foreign correspondents at the heart of the Arab Spring.
.jpg)
He denies a claim in Irish media that he was robbed of £200,000 of cash in 2011, which was reportedly gifted to him by US intelligence, before being stolen by a gang of travellers from his house in Dublin.
In 2017 during the Qatar diplomatic crisis he was designated by the UAE, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Egypt on a “terrorist” list, over his alleged establishment of Syrian opposition group Liwa Al Ummah with US government-sanctioned al-Qaida financier Hajjaj bin Fahd al-Ajmi.
Al Harati has strongly rebutted his blacklisting. In a 2017 interview, he “strongly refuted accusations […] that he [had] ever aided or abetted any form of terrorism in any way, shape or form”.
After his period as a fighter, Al Harati became a civil servant in the post-Gaddafi Libya, becoming the mayor of Tripoli before reportedly being removed due to poor performance.
Tensions in Government
Lord Hermer’s reputation as a human rights lawyer was why he became Attorney General in the first place, but it has also stirred controversy.
The Attorney General’s former clients, many of whom he represented against the Government itself, have drawn ire from critics and led to questions about his suitability for his role.
Allegations of conflict of interest, whether it be around the Chagos Islands or Gerry Adams have led the government to outline how Lord Hermer would recuse himself from cases involving former clients.
However, with the Attorney General in the position of defendant in the Al Harati lawsuit, Lord Hermer’s ability to walk away from the case is harder to outline.
The case’s allegations of complicity in torture may draw out more headaches for Government colleagues who were also in office during the period the case covers.
Keir Starmer’s National Security Advisor, Jonathan Powell, was Downing Street Chief of Staff during Blair’s Government and would have been involved in organising Blair’s meetings with Gaddafi and the subsequent thawing of relations.
According to released archive documents, Powell discussed the thawing of relations with Libya with British industry, feeding back the desires of British defence companies to the Prime Minister before his bilateral with the Prime Minister.
Other ministerial colleagues, including Baroness Lloyd, served in Number 10 at the time, as Deputy Chief of Staff.
A spokesperson for the Attorney General said: “Law Officers such as the Attorney General will naturally have an extensive legal background and may have previously been involved in a wide number of past cases.
“There is a robust system for considering and managing any conflicts that may arise, in line with the professional obligations of Law Officers.”