Green Party member faces scrutiny after court links to jailed al‑Qadri supporter

The Green Party’s Lubna Speitan was named as a close friend of Minh Quang Pham, a Vietnamese national jailed for 40 years following the 2018 Heathrow bomb plot investigation, when she offered to testify on his behalf in court.

Speitan’s willingness to give evidence on behalf of a convicted al‑Qadri supporter raises fresh questions about the party’s vetting processes and the wider political landscape, according to the BBC.

She was called upon during the proceedings at the Old Bailey, where Pham’s appeal against his sentence was being heard. In a statement to the court, Speitan said she was ready to provide information that could help the appeal, citing her long‑standing friendship with the defendant.

From Heathrow plot to a 40‑year sentence

Pham’s conviction followed a failed terrorist attack on Heathrow Airport in 2018, when he was arrested in connection with a plan to plant bombs on flights. The case, which drew international attention, culminated in a 40‑year prison term after a trial that lasted several weeks.

He was the first person in the UK to be sentenced to a fixed term for an al‑Qadri‑linked terror plot, a development that prompted the Home Office to review its counter‑terrorism strategies.

Political fallout for the Green Party

The revelation has put the Green Party under pressure from both opposition parties and civil‑society groups. The party’s spokesperson for security and defence, who declined to comment, said the organisation would conduct an internal review of Speitan’s association with Pham.

Opposition MPs have called for stricter vetting of party volunteers and elected representatives, arguing that personal connections could compromise national security. The Labour Party’s shadow minister for policing said the incident highlighted the need for clearer guidelines on political affiliations.

Implications for the broader political landscape

In the weeks since the Heathrow bomb plot, the UK has seen heightened scrutiny of extremist networks. The court’s handling of Pham’s appeal and the public reaction to Speitan’s testimony are likely to influence the debate on how political parties should manage potential links to extremist figures.

Some analysts suggest the incident could affect the Green Party’s standing in upcoming local elections, where the party seeks to broaden its appeal beyond environmental issues. Others argue that the party’s willingness to confront the matter openly might mitigate damage.

Speitan’s statement was the first time her name appeared in the context of the case, and the court has not yet ruled on whether her testimony will be admitted. The appeal is scheduled to be heard later this month, and the outcome could set a precedent for how political associations are treated in terrorism‑related proceedings.

As the Green Party prepares for the next general election, the focus will shift to whether it can distance itself from the controversy and reassure voters of its commitment to national security.

For now, the court remains the centre of attention, with the case expected to be a key point of debate in Parliament during the coming weeks.