7 Oct 2025 | Europe and Central Asia, News and features, United Kingdom
Transnational repression (TNR) allows states and their proxies to reach across national borders to intimidate, threaten and force silence, targeting everyone who speaks out in the public interest, wherever they are. Index has documented TNR targets across society, including journalists, artists, writers, academics, opposition leaders and members of marginalised groups such as Uyghurs and Tibetans.
Yesterday, Index joined other human rights organisations, academics, legal experts and TNR targets calling on the Office for Students and UK Government to establish robust protections for all academics, students and support staff against TNR in the higher education sector. This followed threats made against Roshaan Khattak, a Pakistani human rights defender and film maker, while he was researching enforced disappearances in Balochistan, a province of Pakistan, at the University of Cambridge.
The letter highlights the challenges he has faced, the gaps in the institution’s response to the threats and what the broader sector must to do ensure everyone in the academic space is protected.
Read the letter below
Sent Electronically
Susan Lapworth
Chief Executive
Office for Students (OfS)
Nicholson House
Castle Park
Bristol BS1 3LH
Cc: The Rt. Hon. Bridget Phillipson MP, Secretary of State for Education
Professor Arif Ahmed, OfS Director for Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom
6 October 2025
As demonstrated by the threats to Cambridge post-graduate student Roshaan Khattak, the Office for Students and the broader higher education sector must establish robust protections against Transnational Repression.
Dear Ms Lapworth,
We, the undersigned organisations and individuals, write to call on the Office for Students, as well as the broader Higher Education sector, to establish tailored and robust protections for academics, students and support staff facing threats of transnational repression (TNR). This follows significant concerns regarding the response of the University of Cambridge to threats made against Mr Roshaan Khattak, a Pakistani filmmaker and human rights defender enrolled as a postgraduate researcher at the institution. This case is illustrative of the threats facing academic inquiry and the need for significant action. As a result, we call on the Office for Students (OfS) to establish policies that relate to universities’ obligations to establish protocols to respond to acts of TNR against their staff, students and the wider academic community.
The UK Government has described TNR as “crimes directed by foreign states against individuals”. While a global phenomenon, examples of TNR in the UK have been documented targeting journalists, human rights defenders, academics and members of diaspora or exile communities based inside the UK by repressive regimes such as Iran, Russia, Pakistan, and China (as well as Hong Kong), as well as democracies with weak institutional protections. The central goal of TNR is to exert state control and censorship beyond state borders to intimidate critics into silence, stifle protected speech and undermine the safety and security of those based in other jurisdictions. Earlier this year, the Joint Committee on Human Rights published a report on TNR following a public inquiry on the issue, which stated “[d]espite the seriousness of the threat, the UK currently lacks a clear strategy to address TNR”. We believe that in the context of higher education, TNR represents a significant threat to students’ ability to “access, succeed in, and progress from higher education” and benefit from “a high quality academic experience”.
The threats facing Roshaan Khattak are illustrative of this risk. On 21 December 2024 Mr Khattak received a message warning that neither Cambridge nor the UK is “safe” for him or his family if he continues his research into enforced disappearances in Balochistan (a province in Pakistan). While the origin of the threat is unknown, there are allegations that the Pakistan military and Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency have targeted those in exile, including Shahzad Akbar and journalists Syed Fawad Ali Shah and Ahmed Waqass Goraya. This also comes at a time when work on human rights violations in Balochistan is increasingly dangerous, as evidenced by the suspicious deaths of Sajid Hussain and Karima Baloch. Despite police awareness of the threat, Mr Khattak reports that his progress towards his PhD has been stopped for now, with Wolfson College having also repeatedly cancelled meetings, revoked his accommodation and changed the locks to his room without notice, limiting access to and compromising his sensitive research materials and data. They have also encouraged him to fundraise from the Baloch community in the UK to secure private accommodation, therefore disregarding the university’s responsibilities to him. We believe that the university should be exploring ways to ensure Mr Khattak’s safety, in collaboration with the relevant authorities, instead of trying to put him out of sight, out of mind. MPs including John McDonnell and Daniel Zeichner, as well as the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders, Mary Lawlor, and other leading human rights defenders have raised awareness of this case or shared their concerns with the University. Additionally, McDonnell has submitted an Early Day Motion in UK Parliament, backed by cross-party support, drawing attention to the threats faced by Roshaan and the wider impact of TNR on UK academia.
The Higher Education and Research Act 2017 outlines OfS’s “duty to protect academic freedom”, while also establishing the legal underpinning for OfS’s regulatory framework which states that both “academic freedom” and “freedom of speech” are public interest governance principles, which should be upheld by all higher education institutions. Further to this, the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, amends the 2017 Act to require institutions to establish codes of practice as it relates to their procedures to protect free speech and for the OfS to establish a free speech complaints scheme. These, as well as the “Regulatory advice 24: Guidance related to freedom of speech”, which came into force in August, establish an important baseline. However, in response to the impact of TNR on free speech and academic freedom, the OfS must build on this to establish specific and tailored responses for academics, students, staff and all university personnel as it relates to TNR.
Due to our concerns related to the absence of sector-wide protections against TNR, as evidenced by the University of Cambridge’s handling of the threats against Mr Khattak and the implications they have on his ability to continue his academic work and express himself freely, we request the OfS to:
1. Review the adequacy of existing sector-wide guidance to ensure it can protect academics, students and other relevant stakeholders from transnational repression;
2. Establish tailored and specific policies as it relates to transnational repression to offer support for the targets and practical guidance for the broader higher education sector. This should include methods by which all relevant authorities, such as the police can be engaged with constructively; and,
3. Commit to report publicly on findings and any regulatory action taken as it relates to TNR, to assure current and prospective students that UK higher-education providers will not yield to acts or threats of TNR.
The undersigned organisations believe that Mr Khattak’s situation is a wake-up call for the higher education sector as it relates to defending both student welfare and the principle of academic freedom in the face of transnational repression. A robust response from OfS will not only safeguard one vulnerable researcher but also support other institutions and at-risk academics who may be facing similar concerns or threats.
We stand ready to provide further documentation or expert testimony and would welcome the opportunity to discuss this matter with your team.
Yours sincerely,
Index on Censorship
Peter Tatchell Foundation
Amnesty International UK
National Union of Journalists
ARTICLE 19
Cambridge University Amnesty Society
Martin Plaut, Senior Research Fellow, Institute of Commonwealth Studies
Dr. Andrew Chubb, Senior Lecturer in Chinese Politics and International Relations, Lancaster University
Sayed Ahmed Alwadaei, Advocacy Director, Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy (BIRD)
Salman Ahmad, UN Goodwill Ambassador, HRD, Author, Professor at City University of New York-Queens College, Target of TNR
Marymagdalene Asefaw, DESTA MEDIA, Target of TNR
Maria Kari, human rights attorney, Founder, Project TAHA
Professor Michael Semple, Senator George J. Mitchell Institute for Global Peace, Security and Justice; Former Deputy to the European Union Special Representative in Afghanistan; Former United Nations Political Official
Hussain Haqqani, former ambassador; currently Senior Fellow and Director for South and Central Asia, Hudson Institute, Washington D.C.
Dr. James Summers, Senior Lecturer in international law, Lancaster University
Dr. Thomas Jeff Miley, Lecturer of Political Sociology, Fellow of Darwin College, University of Cambridge
Aqil Shah, Adjunct Associate Professor, School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University; non-resident scholar at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Ahad Ghanbary, TNR Target
Dr. Lucia Ardovini, Lecturer in International Relations, Lancaster University
Dr. John McDaniel, Lecturer in Criminal Justice and Crime, Lancaster University
Yana Gorokhovskaia, Ph.D., Research Director for Strategy and Design, Freedom House
Afrasiab Khattak, Former Chairperson of Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP), former Senator
Professor Pervez Hoodbhoy, nuclear physicist, nuclear disarmament advocate, public intellectual
Taha Siddiqui, Pakistani journalist in exile (NYTimes, Guardian, France24), Founder The Dissident Club
Shahzad Akbar, Barrister, human rights lawyer, TNR acid attack victim, founder Dissidents United
4 Aug 2025 | News and features, Statements
Transnational repression (TNR) is on the rise globally, fuelled by rapidly evolving technology, global democratic-backsliding and the rise of authoritarianism and years of neglect by previous governments. It is a major policy blind spot, resulting in significant constraints on the exercise of fundamental rights in the UK.
Repressive actors, including powerful and hostile states, have a growing set of tools to surveil, threaten, harass and attack individuals in the UK, violating their fundamental rights guaranteed under international and domestic laws such as the Human Rights Act 1998. Political dissidents, exiled journalists and human rights defenders have traditionally been the main targets of TNR, but today a broader array of groups and individuals also find themselves subject to transnational human rights violations here in the UK.
The UK’s responses to TNR to date have been sparse, incoherent and largely inaccessible to targeted communities and individuals. Law enforcement is an important part of the solution, but the cross-border nature of TNR demands a broader approach to protect the rights of those targeted.
Index on Censorship is a founding member of the Tackling Transnational Repression (TNR) in the UK Working Group. Formed in September 2024, the Tackling TNR Working Group is an informal coalition of individuals and organisations working to address TNR in the UK context.
The working group’s steering committee includes: The Foreign Policy Centre, Richardson Institute at Lancaster University, Index on Censorship, Reporters Without Borders, Azadi Network and The Rights Practice. The wider membership also comprises organisations such as the Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy (BIRD), China Dissent Network, Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong Foundation, FairSquare, Hong Kong Democracy Council, Hong Kong Watch, and Iran International, as well as other individual experts and researchers.
The aims of the group are to:
- To advance research and monitor incidents and effects of TNR in the UK;
- Support individuals and groups affected by TNR; and
- Identify and shape the development of a comprehensive policy response to TNR in the UK.
Together, the Tackling TNR WG has developed a ‘Four Part Approach’ for addressing TNR in the UK, which is outlined in detail below. This approach was included in the Tackling TNR in the UK Working Group’s submission to the Human Rights (Joint Committee) inquiry into ‘Transnational repression in the UK,’ in February 2025. Our evidence was published by the Committee in June 2025, and is available here.
Following the publication of the Joint Committee on Human Rights’ report on transnational repression in the UK on 30th July 2025, the Tackling Transnational Repression in the UK Working Group prepared a statement in response. To read the statement, click here.
The Tackling TNR Working Group’s ‘Four Part Approach’ for addressing TNR in the UK
Monitor
- Provide a clear, accessible and trusted contact point for lodging TNR complaints.
- Collect data, research and reports on the prevalence and forms of transnational infringements of UK residents’ human rights, in a consistent manner that is regularly made public (e.g. through annual reports).
- Play an active role within the international community (including through the Council of Europe, Interpol, the G7 Rapid Response Mechanism, OSCE and UN) to ensure information and data is shared to help combat TNR at a global level, while also protecting against international mechanisms being abused to further TNR.
Respond
- Inform relevant UK government agencies (across all four nations) to ensure legal threats and actions, extradition, deportation and freezing of assets are not used to violate human rights.
- Raise TNR cases, both individually and in aggregate, through diplomatic channels and in public statements.
- Provide rapid response protection mechanisms for individuals facing serious threats, and ensure coordination between all relevant agencies to warn targeted individuals.
Support
- Provide a clear, accessible and trusted point of contact for individuals experiencing TNR to access advice and support.
- Support individuals, communities and family members to access legal assistance, humanitarian visas and temporary traveling documents, as well as other potential avenues of redress.
- Provide appropriate physical or digital protections for victims or targets of TNR.
- Develop national guidance and provide training for local and national law enforcement and first responders about transnational repression, including tactics that might not be criminal offences but warrant attention.
Prevent
- Develop evidence-based proposals for necessary legislative and regulatory changes.
- Develop legal and diplomatic mechanisms to penalise perpetrators of TNR.
- Investigate and hold to account UK institutions, systems or professional industries complicit in TNR.
If you are interested to find out more about the working group and/or to enquire about joining, please email: [email protected]
18 Oct 2024 | Malta, News and features, Newsletters, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Ukraine
Hello, readers. This is Sarah Dawood here, editor of Index on Censorship. Every week, we bring the most pertinent global free speech stories to your inbox.
I must confess that today’s newsletter is very bleak, so I won’t be offended if you click away in search of a more optimistic end to your week. We’re reflecting on how journalists are increasingly being silenced globally, not only with the threat of legal retribution or imprisonment, but with death – often with little or no repercussions for those responsible.
This week marked the seven-year anniversary of the murder of Maltese investigative journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia, who was killed in a car bomb attack on 16 October 2017. She reported extensively on corruption in Malta, as well as on international scandals such as the Panama Papers (the historic data leak exposing how the rich exploit secret offshore tax regimes).
Two hitmen were convicted for her murder in 2022, but criminal proceedings are still ongoing against three more suspects, including the alleged mastermind of the assassination and the alleged bomb suppliers. This week, free speech organisations signed an open letter to Malta’s prime minister calling on him to promptly implement robust, internationally-sound legal reform to keep journalists safe in future. The letter pointed to a public inquiry into her death, which found it was both “predictable and preventable”, and highlighted “the failure of the authorities to take measures to protect her”.
The start of this month marked another grim milestone – six years since the death of prominent Saudi journalist Jamal Ahmad Khashoggi. He was a regular contributor to major news outlets like Middle East Eye and The Washington Post, as well as editor-in-chief at the former Bahrain-based Al-Arab News Channel. A vocal critic of his government, he was assassinated at a Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Turkey.
Such attacks on free speech continue. We were appalled, for instance, to learn of the death of the 27-year-old Ukrainian journalist Victoria Roshchyna last week, a reporter from the front-line of the Russia-Ukraine war who had written for Index about her experiences. The circumstances around her death are still unknown, but we know she died in Russian detention.
Increasingly, governments or powerful individuals act with impunity – whereby their human rights violations are exempt from punishment – willfully ignoring international law that states journalists are civilians and have a “right to life”. For many victims, the course of justice is either delayed, as in Caruana Galizia’s case, or the circumstances around their deaths are obfuscated and murky, as in Roshchyna’s. Question marks remain over who is ultimately responsible, or how it happened, creating a cycle of censorship whereby it’s not only the journalists and their reporting that are silenced, but their deaths.
This impunity has been shown in plain sight throughout the Israel-Hamas war. To date, 123 Palestinian journalists have been killed in Gaza by Israeli forces, with the Committee to Protect Journalists concluding that at least five were intentionally targeted. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) deny these claims, yet an Al Jazeera documentary recently revealed that journalists live in fear of their lives, and their families’. One of the most high-profile cases of a targeted attack was that of Hamza al-Dahdouh, the son of Al Jazeera Gaza bureau chief and veteran journalist Wael al-Dahdouh, whose wife and another two children were also previously killed in Israeli airstrikes. Two Israeli and three Lebanese journalists have also been killed in the conflict, with the International Criminal Court seeking arrest warrant applications for both Israeli and Hamas leaders for war crimes.
All these cases show a growing disregard for journalists’ lives, but also for the very essence of journalism itself. When not threatened with death or physical violence, media personnel are threatened with imprisonment, the closing of legitimate news offices, internet blackouts, and psychological and financial abuse. SLAPPs – strategic lawsuits against public participation – for instance, are being increasingly used globally by powerful and wealthy people as an abusive legal tool to threaten journalists into silence with eye-watering fines. How can “the fourth estate” truly hold power to account, when those in power can so easily dismantle and destroy their means of doing so?
At a time of devastating global conflict, the ability for journalists to report on stories free from the threat of harm, imprisonment, lawsuits or death has never been more important. To protect journalism itself, international and national law must work harder to protect the individuals most at risk. Without the threat of retribution for powerful individuals, the cycle of censorship will only continue.
11 Jun 2024 | Israel, Moldova, News and features, Russia, Ukraine
Israel’s High Court of Justice this week heard a petition challenging new legislation allowing a ban on foreign broadcasters deemed a threat to national security.
Known as the Al Jazeera law, in honour of its inaugural target, this allows the communications minister, with the consent of the prime minister and the committee of national security, to impose far-reaching sanctions.
“There is no doubt that there is a violation of freedom of expression here,” the High Court panel’s head, Justice Yitzhak Amit, told the hearing.
Yet Israel’s May shuttering of Al Jazeera – described as a “terror channel” by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – passed without much domestic concern.
Any outrage was limited to Israel’s small liberal left wing, even though in banning Al Jazeera, Israel joins the august ranks of countries including Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Bahrain.
The issue is, of course, rife with politicisation. Al Jazeera is headquartered in Qatar, as is part of the Hamas leadership, and is hardly free from bias. Nonetheless, this law can be used in the future to ban other foreign broadcasters that are deemed to pose an amorphous “threat to national security”.
And crucially, it includes an “override clause” that even Israel’s high court cannot overturn.
It’s important to note that countries often introduce special legislation affecting media in times of war and crisis, amid legitimate national security considerations.
Ukraine is an obvious case in point, not least because it faces such a particularly sharp threat from Russian disinformation.
A year before Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022, President Volodymyr Zelensky moved to shut down three pro-Russian TV channels judged to effectively be weapons in Russia’s information war.
Immediately after the full-scale invasion, all national news channels were united into a 24-hour broadcast, and a subsequent newly revised media law was intended to be muscular enough to withstand Russian malign influence.
Yet while criticism of the government in times of war – especially one being fought with a citizen’s army – is not easy, Ukrainian journalists have quite effectively held their leaders to account.
Reporting on corruption in the defence ministry, for instance, heralded the minister’s resignation of defence minister Oleskiy Reznikov and government pledges for greater transparency.
And critically, the Government’s moves in the information sphere have not gone unchallenged. Ukraine, with its history of authoritarian government and a media scene under the sway of oligarchs and political interests, knows all too well how fragile free expression can be.
While officials made clear that the telethon would be completely free of government intervention, not all outlets were included, and critics note that some of those excluded such as Espresso, Channel 5, and Priamyi, had often criticised Zelensky and to varying degrees were associated with his predecessor Petro Poroshenko.
And there was widespread criticism of the March 2023 media law for handing too much power to government intervention, with the same measures to counter Russian disinformation all too easily abused to limit critical voices.
In neighbouring Moldova, scores of pro-Russian outlets were banned under the state of emergency declared immediately after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. More than two years later, the TV channels and websites remain blocked despite the end of the state of emergency, and many critics would argue that the country remains as vulnerable as ever to Russian propaganda.
What is needed to ensure that national security considerations do not become a tool to control free expression is a robust civil society push back and an ongoing debate on the boundary between freedom of speech and the fight against fake news.
In Israel, where the national narrative has become an inextricable part of the conflict itself, the public appears increasingly supine in the face of the official version of events.
Israel has long championed its diverse and outspoken media sector as a sign of a vibrant democracy, alongside robust laws that purport to protect free expression. But civil society and media are now experiencing repression from both official and non-state sources, with Palestinian citizens of Israel bearing the brunt.
Anti-war protests have been curtailed and violently repressed; Jewish and Arab teachers fired over left-wing posts on social media, while students have faced disciplinary actions for simply supporting a ceasefire.
Dissenting voices and journalists are being directly targeted and doxxed. Just after 7 October, Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi suggested police be empowered to arrest those accused of spreading information that could harm morale or fuel enemy propaganda.
Haaretz journalist Rogel Alpher this week noted a column in Yisrael Hayom which called for articles in the penal law that mandate execution or life imprisonment enforced on those disseminating “defeatist propaganda” or “abetting the enemy”.
Of course, Israel is not about to start executing journalists. The vast majority of extreme proposals do not make it into law, just as most anti-war arrests do not lead to indictments. Even bans on specific outlets are not total; Al Jazeera can still be accessed with absolute ease online.
But this all helps create a chilling atmosphere, serving to normalise such actions and increasing self-censorship.
Israel’s Hebrew-language media has chosen to self-censor to such a large extent that Jewish Israelis experience what Esther Solomon, editor-in-chief of Haaretz English, describes as a “cognitive gap” between the content they consume and what the rest of the world sees.
This means that anything confronting the profoundly uncomfortable reality of war and contradicting the accepted IDF narrative is seen as traitorous and a threat to national security.
The public acceptance of vaguely worded censorious media laws seems to fit all too well with the ongoing slow and creeping deterioration of Israel’s democracy.
