UK must release legal advice on Syria drone strike: NGO

The UK government is attempting to pay "lip service to transparency" over a drone strike in Syria that killed two British nationals, a rights group said on Thursday as it launched a new legal challenge in the matter.

Rights Watch UK, which works to ensure that the UK’s national security measures do not break international law, is appealing to the government to release information about the strike, which killed British citizens Reyaad Khan and Ruhul Amin in August 2015.

The drone strike was the first of its kind launched by UK forces, who were not then at war in Syria.

Since then, the UK has deployed further drone strikes – last month Royal Air Force drones reportedly took part in attacks that mistakenly killed dozens of soldiers from Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s army.

The UK parliament voted last December to support military action against the Islamic State group in Syria.

However, the strike in question occurred before MPs approved the intervention – and, according to Rights Watch UK, using drones for a targeted killing of British citizens in a country where the UK is not at war was “unprecedented”.

Then prime minister David Cameron said he had consulted the attorney general, the country’s most senior legal adviser, ahead of the strike.

However, Rights Watch UK’s Freedom of Information request to see that advice, submitted in September 2015, was rejected by both the Cabinet Office and the attorney general, which both gave different reasons for refusing to disclose the information.

The NGO announced on Thursday that it is appealing the government's decision to withhold the information, saying the legal background to the strike could have “profound ramifications for international law and human lives”.

"We are deeply disappointed by the government’s continued failure to provide clarity on their legal position," Rights Watch UK director Yasmine Ahmed said.

“David Cameron’s reference to the legal advice he relied on, without elaborating on what that advice was, is mere lip service to transparency. Genuine accountability requires independent scrutiny of the legality of the strike.”

Ahmed added that people have a right to know what the government is doing in their name.

"The government’s refusal to clarify its position on the use of lethal force outside armed conflict…is a disingenuous attempt to evade the crucial question - one which has profound ramifications for international law and human lives,” Ahmed said.