As everyone knows the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security resigned after the High Court ruled that Justice Greig should not participate further in the review of Ahmed Zaoui’s security risk certificate.
His comments to the Listener seemed potential grounds enough, but also the fact that he seemed to closely co-operate with the bodies he was reviewing rather than be semi-detached from them. I wonder whether the structure is the right one. An Inspector-General may feel that by not upholding an SIS decision he publicly undermines the SIS. Perhaps the IG should review decisions before they are public, rather than afterwards when he might be influenced to support them so we are not seen as weak on the war against terror.
I still believe on the evidence to date that Zaoui should be deported as he is a convicted terrorist in multiple countries. However it has taken far too long, and I have some sympathy for the notion that no-one should be in jail this long, unless convicted. Balancing that though is the delays are caused by mainly Zaoui’s team, but he is allowed to explore every option. A law review after this case would be a good idea.