“Zia Yusuf’s attacks on Suella Braverman and Robert Jenrick are not just wrong – they’re dangerously dishonest.”
There is an art to being a disruptor in politics. There is a place for firebrands, for truth-tellers, for those who challenge orthodoxies. But there is no place, none, for self-righteous misinformation, character assassination, or casual defamation disguised as “calling out the establishment.”
And sadly, it seems that’s precisely what Zia Yusuf is descending into. His recent interventions, especially concerning the Afghanistan data leak and the role of senior Conservative ministers in its handling, have been not only factually wrong but politically reckless.
If Reform UK is to be taken seriously as a force for responsible change, it must rein in its most unhinged attack dog before he damages the cause beyond repair.
Let’s be clear: the now-infamous Afghan Response Route (ARR) scheme, after the Ministry of Defence’s catastrophic data breach, was not – repeat, not the brainchild of either Suella Braverman or Robert Jenrick. Both had left government by that time. Both had, while in office, raised legitimate concerns about the scale and scope of Afghan immigration. Neither were involved in the super-injunction, the scheme’s design, or its execution.
But that hasn’t stopped Zia. With the subtlety of a sledgehammer and the accuracy of a broken compass, he has chosen to attack Braverman and Jenrick for policies they neither initiated nor implemented. Worse, he has done so by conflating two separate programmes—ARAP, which rightly helped our Afghan allies in 2021, and the far more controversial ARR, which ballooned in cost and scope long after they had stepped down. This isn’t political hardball. It’s lazy, personalised nonsense.
As Suella Braverman put it in her meticulous statement:
“The ARR should not be confused with the Afghanistan Relocations and Assistance Policy (ARAP)… The mistaken data leak came from inside the Ministry of Defence. I was not a Minister at that department… I left office in November 2023… The ARR scheme was established after I had left the Government.”
Robert Jenrick, too, has set the record straight:
“The Afghan Response Route has been a complete disaster… The ARR scheme was agreed and started after I had resigned from Government… The Afghan individuals I helped came on the ARAP scheme and had nothing to do with the subsequent ARR scheme.”
In other words, Zia’s accusations are not just off-target, they’re fundamentally dishonest. Or, if we are being generous, he is out of his depth. Either way, his behaviour is unbecoming of someone who claims to represent a serious movement.
Let’s also not forget the legal context that Zia conveniently ignores. Both Braverman and Jenrick were bound by injunctions and the Official Secrets Act. They could not legally disclose or discuss the debacle, even as it unfolded behind the scenes. Again, Braverman was crystal clear:
“Anyone who is claiming that those who have left Government could or should have ‘blown the whistle’ before the injunction was lifted does not understand our legal or political system.”
So what exactly is Zia doing, if not willfully misleading the public? His barbs might score him cheap applause online, but they come at the cost of Reform’s credibility. He is indulging in exactly the sort of political gamesmanship Nigel Farage has said he stands against, shallow, performative outrage instead of hard-nosed, evidence-based criticism.
Worse still, by wrongly targeting former ministers who were on the right side of this issue, who opposed the open-door madness of the ARR, Zia is giving a free pass to the real culprits: the Ministry of Defence, the civil service blob, and the legal apparatus that has shielded this debacle from sunlight for far too long.
In speaking to the Post, a senior Reformer who didn’t want to be named said: “We in Reform UK pride ourselves on telling the truth, no matter how uncomfortable. But the truth must be accurate. Zia’s outbursts are neither truthful nor useful. They are amateur-hour politics and, frankly, they reflect badly on us all.
“This movement cannot afford to become a home for conspiracy and confusion. We are fighting for nothing less than the restoration of national sovereignty, border integrity, and public trust in government. That fight demands clarity, discipline, and honesty, not tabloid antics and Twitter tantrums.”
So here’s the message: grow up, Zia. Or step aside. The stakes are too high, and the public’s patience too thin, for this kind of political deception and immaturity.
Next time you cry wolf, don’t expect anyone serious to follow the howl.
Read Robert Jenrick’s response Here:
The Afghan Response Route has been a complete disaster.
Yes, we have an obligation to keep safe those who had genuinely risked their lives for us and those we’d endangered, who now face credible threats. But, as the Defence Secretary has said, “most of those names on the list were people who didn’t work alongside our forces, didn’t serve with our forces.” And as Johnny Mercer has said, the Afghan Response Route has gone well beyond that. It means thousands with few links to Britain have come here – and will continue to come here – at a cost of billions to the public.
Why was the super-injunction extended for two years, so long after the event and with little regard to the consequences for public trust? Why was the vetting of prospective arrivals not tighter? The public needs answers to these questions so this never, ever happens again.
I first learned of the data leak and plan to resettle people after the super-injunction was in place. Parliamentary privilege is not unlimited; I was bound by the Official Secrets Act.
In internal government discussions in the short period before my resignation, the then Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, and I strongly opposed the plans to bring over 24,000 Afghan nationals. For those at genuine risk we thought there were alternative options to pursue that better served the interests of the British people.
The Afghan Response Route was agreed and started after I had resigned from the Government over their migration policies. The plan to do this scheme was on the list of things Suella Braverman and I were working together to oppose and change.
Clearly the last Government made serious mistakes. What’s not been mentioned enough is what has happened since. Thousands more have come since Labour came to power. 5,400 more have received invitation letters and will be flown over in the coming weeks, leading to the cost reaching £7bn.
However, the disastrous data leak does not mean that those who bravely served with our armed forces should have been left at the mercy of the Taliban. It means there needs to be accountability for such a terrible error. Contrary to what some have suggested, the Afghan individuals I helped came on the ARAP scheme and had nothing to do with the subsequent ARR scheme caused by the data leak. Sayed was a translator for the British Council working alongside our government to combat the Taliban. He served our country and we were right to protect him. His family were resettled in August 2021, escaping in the aftermath of the horrific terrorist attack at Kabul airport.
The catastrophic data leak happened in February 2022 and the Government became aware 18 months later. To mix up what happened years afterwards and smear them, as some have done, is as stupid as it is shameful. Sayed supported our people in Afghanistan. He speaks good English and now works in the Midlands. They did not come here on a small boat illegally like those who have no right to be here. They earned their place, were checked, and came here legally.
The British public have lost all confidence in our immigration system. This sorry saga encapsulates why. The public are right to be angry – they should never have been put in this position.
Read Suella Braverman’s response here:
Main Image: Photograph of Zia Yusuf addressing the NEC in Birmingham on 30/6/2024. Licence – Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication.
