Shabana Mahmood, the Home Secretary, is expected to announce on Monday how she will change immigration law to allow the deportation of Shabir Ahmed, the leader of the Rochdale grooming gang BBC. The Telegraph first reported that she would introduce legislation to remove him BBC.

Ahmed, 73, was sentenced to 22 years in August 2012 for child sexual abuse including rape. He was released on licence last week after serving 14 years of his sentence Sky News. His victims knew him as "Daddy" BBC.

The legal complication stems from his citizenship status. He held both British and Pakistani nationality until the Home Office removed his British citizenship after his conviction. That should make him eligible for deportation as a foreign national. However, a 1971 immigration law contains a protection for Commonwealth citizens who arrived before 1973 and lived here for five years or more — a category Ahmed falls into BBC. Ministers want to amend this specific clause, which was written over 50 years ago to protect long-settled migrants from sudden removal.

Since his release, Ahmed has been placed in staffed accommodation with round-the-clock supervision and fitted with a GPS-monitored electronic tag. The government has said any violation of his licence conditions would return him to prison BBC. Some of his victims have reported feeling frightened and unsafe following his release BBC.

Pressure from local and parliamentary figures

Andy Burnham, the Mayor of Greater Manchester, publicly called for Ahmed's deportation as the release date approached Telegraph. By 2 July, the BBC reported that the government was "looking at every route" to remove him BBC. By that point, officials had begun discussing the practicalities with Pakistani officials BBC, and on 3 July the Times of India reported that Whitehall was considering emergency legislation Times of India.

Parliament moved quickly. The House of Commons held a debate titled "Rochdale Grooming Gang: Offender Deportation" on 6 July Hansard — two days before Mahmood's statement — suggesting the government was responding to backbench and public pressure rather than following its own timeline.

The issue has crossed party lines. Chris Philp, the Shadow Home Secretary, told the BBC on 2 July that he planned to propose his own amendment to modify whatever bill ministers introduce BBC BBC. This signals that the Conservatives think the government's approach is either too limited in scope, too slow to deliver, or both — though the exact focus of Philp's proposed changes has not been disclosed publicly.

The legislative and political challenges ahead

The government faces a crucial choice about how to draft the new law. Ministers could introduce a narrow clause aimed specifically at Ahmed's case, which would be quicker to pass and harder to challenge on discrimination grounds if written carefully. Alternatively, they could rewrite the broader Commonwealth protections in the 1971 Act, catching other long-settled foreign nationals stripped of British nationality after serious crimes. The latter approach invites scrutiny from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the House of Lords, and immigration lawyers — any of which could slow the bill's progress considerably.

There is also the question of cooperation from Pakistan. UK legislation alone solves only half the problem. Actually removing Ahmed depends on the Pakistani government's willingness to accept him, confirmation that his Pakistani citizenship is valid, and the practical logistics of returning a 73-year-old man under licence to a country he left decades ago. Officials from both countries were already in talks by early July, but no timeline has been made public.

The devolved dimension also matters. Immigration and deportation fall under Westminster's exclusive authority, so any law Mahmood passes applies across all four UK nations regardless of where Ahmed is eventually housed or where his crimes occurred. However, policing his electronic tag and monitoring his licence conditions involve Greater Manchester Police and the Probation Service — which is why Burnham, as a mayor with no formal power over immigration policy, has focused his public statements on demanding deportation rather than proposing an enforcement mechanism.