A former senior civil servant has raised allegations against policymakers at the UK Cabinet Office, claiming that derogatory language was used in reference to migrants and that an atmosphere of hostility prevailed.
Rowaa Ahmar, who recently withdrew a tribunal claim citing systemic racism within the department, asserted that discussions within the illegal migration taskforce included phrases like “bloody migrants” and involved a directive to set aside empathy. Ahmar, who had served as the head of policy within the taskforce in 2022, maintained the substance of her claims despite withdrawing the formal complaint.
In an interview with the Guardian, Ahmar recounted instances where decisions were made disregarding legal advice, notably concerning the Rwanda scheme aimed at managing migration flows. She alleged that concerns about the human cost and financial implications were dismissed, with instructions to conceal information from the Treasury to expedite the scheme’s approval.
Ahmar, of Egyptian and French descent, stated that she raised objections to the racially charged atmosphere but found herself increasingly sidelined from discussions before being abruptly removed from her position, allegedly due to “poor behavior.”
The taskforce, convened to address the issue of small boat arrivals across the Channel, reportedly disregarded warnings from France regarding the dangers of certain tactics, demonstrating, according to Ahmar, a callous disregard for human life.
Although Ahmar withdrew her tribunal claim, which accused the Cabinet Office of fostering a hostile and racist work environment, she detailed her experiences of discriminatory treatment and victimization, alleging direct discrimination based on her race and sex.
The Cabinet Office refuted Ahmar’s allegations, stating that they were baseless and unsupported by evidence. They highlighted Ahmar’s withdrawal of the case without any settlement, emphasizing inconsistencies in her claims.
Describing the environment within the taskforce, Ahmar spoke of discussions marked by dehumanizing language and a lack of consideration for migrants’ rights. She asserted that efforts to steer policy discussions away from prejudiced viewpoints were met with resistance from managers entrenched in what she described as a racially hostile stance.
Ahmar’s tenure at the taskforce, she claimed, was marked by frustration at the narrow focus on enforcement measures rather than exploring safe and legal avenues for migration.
The controversy surrounding Ahmar’s allegations comes amidst broader concerns about the government’s approach to immigration policy, with criticism mounting over the handling of schemes like the Rwanda initiative.
Despite facing setbacks and resistance, Ahmar remains steadfast in her commitment to addressing racism and holding government institutions accountable for their actions.
The Cabinet Office maintained its stance, portraying the taskforce as diligent in pursuing government priorities and dismissing Ahmar’s claims as unsubstantiated.
Ahmar’s case sheds light on the challenges faced by civil servants striving to uphold principles of equality and fairness within bureaucratic structures, underscoring the need for robust mechanisms to address allegations of discrimination and misconduct.