Guantánamo compensation and UK intelligence accountability

Published: 13 January 2026. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online.

The issue of Guantánamo compensation has returned to the centre of British political debate, prompting renewed calls for transparency from senior ministers. A former attorney general has urged the government to explain why a substantial payment was made to a Palestinian detainee who remains imprisoned at the US military facility, despite never facing criminal charges. The case has reopened unresolved questions about Britain’s role during the early years of the so-called war on terror and the moral cost of intelligence cooperation.

The detainee at the heart of the controversy is Abu Zubaydah, a man whose treatment by the CIA became emblematic of post-9/11 interrogation abuses. Captured in Pakistan in 2002, he was the first prisoner subjected to waterboarding under a secret US programme later condemned internationally. British intelligence agencies were drawn into his detention through their exchanges with American counterparts, a relationship that has since attracted intense legal and parliamentary scrutiny.

Reports confirmed that the UK government quietly paid Zubaydah a significant sum, potentially reaching several hundred thousand pounds. The payment followed years of litigation alleging that MI5 and MI6 were complicit in his mistreatment by sharing intelligence questions, even after warnings emerged that he was being tortured. The lack of public explanation has fuelled concern among lawmakers and campaigners alike, who argue that accountability cannot be served behind closed doors.

Dominic Grieve, who served as attorney general and later chaired a parliamentary inquiry into British involvement in rendition and torture, described the payment as unsurprising but troubling. He argued that Parliament deserves a clear ministerial statement outlining why the settlement was made and what failures it reflects. According to Grieve, the evidence gathered during his committee’s work showed systemic negligence rather than isolated mistakes.

The parliamentary intelligence and security committee concluded in 2018 that British agencies continued to supply interrogation questions to the CIA until at least 2006. This cooperation persisted without seeking assurances about Zubaydah’s treatment, despite credible reports of extreme abuse. One internal assessment suggested that almost all trained US special forces personnel would have broken under similar conditions, highlighting the severity of what Zubaydah endured.

Although he was initially portrayed as a senior al-Qaida figure, the United States later withdrew that claim. He has never been charged with any offence and has no proven connection to the 9/11 attacks. Nevertheless, he remains detained at Guantánamo Bay more than two decades after his capture, earning the label of a “forever prisoner” from human rights advocates. The recent Guantánamo compensation paid by the UK has drawn renewed attention to his prolonged detention.

The government response to the payment has been minimal. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office confirmed the Guantánamo compensation settlement but declined to discuss intelligence matters or admit liability. Intelligence sources also refused comment, citing long-standing conventions of secrecy. This silence has only intensified criticism, with opponents arguing that democratic oversight requires greater openness when public money is used to resolve allegations of grave wrongdoing.

Human rights organisations have framed the settlement as an implicit acknowledgment of British responsibility. Reprieve, which has supported Zubaydah’s legal efforts, said financial redress alone is insufficient. Its representatives maintain that if the UK was complicit in torture, it owes a public apology and concrete assurances that such conduct will never recur.

The controversy also exposes ongoing gaps in safeguards governing intelligence sharing. Current policy allows British agencies to receive or use information obtained under a real risk of torture in exceptional circumstances. Critics argue that this loophole undermines the absolute prohibition on torture enshrined in international law and leaves room for future abuses.

Legal dimensions of the case continue to reverberate. During earlier proceedings, Zubaydah was represented by Richard Hermer, now serving as attorney general. The litigation sought to establish that English and Welsh law applied to the actions of British officials involved overseas. In December 2023, the UK Supreme Court accepted that argument, strengthening the basis for accountability claims.

Political promises made in the aftermath of the rendition scandal remain unfulfilled. A full public inquiry was pledged by David Cameron during his premiership but later abandoned. Instead, a narrower parliamentary investigation was conducted with limited powers, excluding junior intelligence officers from questioning. Many observers believe this restriction prevented a complete understanding of how decisions were made and authorised.

Subsequent court disclosures in related cases suggested that Zubaydah’s experience may not be unique. Up to fifteen other cases reportedly involve allegations of British complicity in unlawful detention or mistreatment abroad. These revelations raise the prospect of further claims and additional Guantánamo compensation settlements, potentially exposing the Treasury to significant financial and reputational costs.

For campaigners, the broader issue extends beyond money. They argue that the UK must confront its past actions honestly to restore credibility as a defender of human rights. Without transparency, they warn, trust in public institutions will continue to erode, particularly among communities affected by counterterrorism policies.

The government now faces a delicate balance between national security secrecy and democratic accountability. While intelligence cooperation remains vital in addressing modern threats, the Zubaydah case illustrates the long-term consequences when ethical boundaries are crossed. Each unanswered question reinforces demands for clarity about how Britain conducts itself when operating alongside powerful allies.

As debate intensifies, Guantánamo compensation has become a symbol of unfinished reckoning. It reflects unresolved tensions between security imperatives and legal obligations, as well as the human cost of policies shaped by fear and urgency. Whether ministers choose to confront these issues openly may determine how history judges Britain’s role in one of the darkest chapters of recent counterterrorism efforts.

Check our latest news