The first time I heard about Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s case in 2016, I was in my living room with Richard Ratcliffe and Jeremy Corbyn while breastfeeding my newborn. Aside from feeling utterly sorry for this softly spoken accountant, a constituent of mine, I remember being apprehensive about Richard’s determined plans to go public about his family’s plight.
In his typically calm manner, he told me the Foreign Office (FCDO) had strongly advised him to stay quiet, as had lawyers he had consulted. Yet he was dismayed the FCDO hadn’t been able to locate or even communicate with Nazanin in 30 days. The officials simply seemed pleased that Iran wasn’t denying her existence, he told me in disbelief.
As a legislator, I felt conflicted. Were we putting Nazanin’s life in danger by going public, I asked him tentatively. He said he had put a great deal of thought into it, and that he believed going public would keep his wife safe. I decided to take my cue from Richard and offer support for his campaign, as his MP. It was important to give Nazanin a voice, for her story to be heard. Within three days of going public, Nazanin was allowed a visit from her family, and soon afterwards was transferred out of solitary confinement. We had to recognise these small victories, even though they weren’t enough.
Over time, I became bolder in my view that going public was the right approach, but not all parliamentarians agreed. One FCDO minister told me that every time I mentioned Nazanin in parliament I added five years to her prison sentence. Given I was granted eight urgent questions and countless debates in parliament about her, that was an alarming thought. Thank goodness, the maths didn’t add up.
I also got into hot water when telling the press that Nazanin’s treatment in prison fitted the UN’s criteria for torture – another FCDO minister tracked down my personal phone number in order to berate me. But soon afterwards, Nazanin was finally allowed a medical examination. When speaking to her months later, while under house arrest, she thanked me and said the campaign meant she was the best-protected inmate in Evin prison.
As the years went by, the link between Britain’s historic debt of £400m for a cancelled arms deal with Iran and Nazanin’s imprisonment became a growing source of tension. Along with Labour’s then shadow foreign secretary, Emily Thornberry, I repeatedly raised concerns over state hostage-taking and Iran’s clear pattern of behaviour in this area. Nazanin was repeatedly told by her captors that her arrest was linked to the debt, while the then Iranian foreign minister, Javad Zarif, cited it in an interview at the United Nations General Assembly in 2019.
Despite this, all three prime ministers and the four foreign secretaries that I dealt with refused to acknowledge the link, beyond off-record briefings to journalists. They were not alone. In March 2021, I asked Jacob Rees-Mogg, then leader of the House of Commons, whether he would agree there was a clear link between Nazanin’s case and the debt. In a call to the prime minister the day before, the Iranian president, Hassan Rouhani, had all but confirmed that resolving this debt was the key to diplomatic progress and could help Nazanin’s case. Rees-Mogg replied: “It would be quite wrong to link payments of any money to the release of somebody who is improperly detained.” The message seemed clear: this government would not acknowledge the link.
A breakthrough came towards the end of 2021 when we met Liz Truss (our fifth foreign secretary). For the first time, an elected government official seemed to explicitly acknowledge the link, and she has since described the debt as “legitimate”. Richard and I have, in recent days, found ourselves laughing in sheer disbelief at how the narrative has changed, with the entire government now openly celebrating how it paid the debt to get Nazanin back. While we are overjoyed at the outcome, it’s impossible not to regret all the time that was wasted.
I also cannot reflect on Nazanin’s story without lamenting the prime minister’s damaging role in it. In 2017, Boris Johnson, then foreign secretary, wrongly told the foreign affairs select committee that Nazanin had been in Iran “simply teaching people journalism, as I understand it”. His remarks were weaponised in the Iranian state media and cited by the Iranian judiciary as evidence for her “crimes”.
This disastrous blunder meant Johnson was forced to meet us. Again, I raised my concerns about the debt, which were flatly denied by him. Incredibly, he asked if Richard had enjoyed his visit to Iran. Anyone who had read a newspaper article on the case was aware that Richard had been at home in the UK when his wife was arrested in Iran. To this day, I feel astonished by Johnson’s extremely poor grasp of his brief. (Richard gasped at the question.) I should add that this was certainly not the case for the FCDO officials who knew the details of the case inside out.
In contrast, I pay tribute to Jeremy Hunt during his time as foreign secretary. He too went against advice from officials when he granted Nazanin diplomatic status. He was frank that it had given him sleepless nights, but said it was the right thing to do as it made her case a state-to-state dispute. While his biggest regret was not bringing Nazanin home, he told me Richard inspired him, reminding him of the need to be there for ordinary people who need help: “We all need that prompt sometimes.”
Ultimately, was Richard Ratcliffe vindicated for going public on his wife’s case? Could Nazanin have come home earlier if we had stayed quiet? We will never know, but a great deal of credit must be given to his campaigning, which raised global awareness and ensured the debt was centre of people’s minds. No doubt the government’s need to find another source of energy helped expedite things too.
But in my opinion, Richard has been vindicated because his goal evolved as the campaign ran on. It wasn’t just about getting Nazanin home, but also drawing attention to hostage taking and arbitrary detention. As one former foreign secretary said, “Thanks to him, a global scandal has been uncovered.” Not bad for an accountant from West Hampstead.
• Tulip Siddiq is the MP for Hampstead and Kilburn
