Action on Interpal

BOND has been engaged in advocacy on the case of Interpal, also known as the Palestinian Relief and Development Fund, because of the wider implications for the sector of its designation by the United States as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT) organisation on 21 August 2003.

BBC Panorama programme on Interpal

The BBC Panorama programme Faith, Hate and Charity, shown on Sunday 30 July, looked at the case of BOND member organisation Interpal, arguing that the charity's donations to partner organisations on the West Bank "have helped build support for Hamas" and that Interpal has helped to spread its "Islamist ideology".

Ibrahim Hewitt, chair of Interpal, said the programme was "a wholly unbalanced and incomplete picture". He said that Interpal was a politically neutral organisation and has never supported terrorism.

The Charity Commission investigated the affairs of Interpal in both 1996 and 2003 looking into concerns that its funds might have been misappropriated for the activities of Hamas. In both instances following thorough investigations of the charity's practices and record-keeping, the Commission found no evidence to support allegations of misapplication of funds.

The Commission has asked the BBC to share details of the evidence presented by the programme for assessment. Once the Commission has assessed the information and the trustees' response, a decision will be taken on whether a new inquiry into this issue is required.

Interpal is a registered British charity providing aid in Palestine and the Occupied Territories and has been described by the Charity Commission as a "well run and committed organisation". Following Interpal's designation as a SDGT, the Charity Commission froze their bank accounts and carried out a thorough investigation of the organisation, concluding that there was no credible evidence to support the allegation of terrorist connections.

Despite this, Interpal remains on the US list, and has subsequently been listed by other countries, including Australia and Canada, apparently as a direct result of the US designation. Not only does there seem to be no evidence to support these governments' decisions, but the process by which organisations end up on such lists and how they can be taken off them again remains unclear. The designation as a terrorist organisation has far-reaching implications for Interpal – its work has been disrupted, trustees could be charged if they travel outside the UK, and there is increased personal risk for those who work for the organisation.

With apparently no transparency in procedures, this designation could happen to any UK organisation at any time. BOND has written to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and met with ministers to call on the UK government to take action to remove Interpal from the terrorist lists.

Over the last two years, it has become quite clear that the manner in which the relevant department of the US Treasury, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), identifies and designates NGOs suspected of terrorist financing is deeply flawed. Charitable assets are blocked without recourse to any adversarial process adjudicating culpability and OFAC uses classified evidence unavailable to the defence that would not be admissible in judicial proceedings.

Once designated, there is no time limit for when the designation runs out. Nor does OFAC have any processes of review and appeal. The US-based Council on Foreign Relations Task Force on Terrorist Financing, set up in 2002 to evaluate the effectiveness of US efforts to disrupt terrorist financing, has recommended that OFAC "establish procedures for appeal and potential removal of the names of individuals and institutions wrongly designated as being associated with the financing of terrorism" . But until this happens, organisations that have been accused of supporting terrorism without supporting evidence will continue to find themselves in a legal limbo at the mercy of an opaque organisation that relies on the ploy of citing 'secret evidence' to support its allegations.

BOND continues to assert that the classification of British organisations and citizens as terrorist by foreign governments, with no transparency or judicial scrutiny, is a matter of concern for the British government.

View BOND's letter to Jack Straw of December 2003.
View Baroness Symons' response from January 2004.
View BOND's response to Baroness Symons of March 2004.
View BOND's letter to Baroness Symons of June 2005.