Pictured: convicted Islamic terrorist sentenced to death for plotting to kill an Egyptian Prime Minister in the 1990s who is running a honey business from a north London lock-up
A man convicted of plotting to assassinate Egyptian prime minister Atef Sedki in a 1993 car bombing that killed a schoolgirl bystander, and sentenced to death in absentia by an Egyptian court, has been living freely in north London for years, where he now runs a small honey business from a lock-up unit. The case highlights how individuals convicted of serious terrorism offences abroad, including capital crimes, can find sanctuary in Britain and go on to lead ordinary civilian lives, raising questions about extradition, asylum policy and public safety.
The 1993 bombing targeted Sedki's motorcade in Cairo but missed him, instead killing a 12-year-old girl and injuring dozens of others; the man was subsequently tried and condemned to death by Egyptian authorities, who have long sought his return. He has instead settled in the UK, where he has built a legitimate small business selling honey, and was photographed by reporters at his London premises, prompting fresh scrutiny of his presence and legal status in the country.
- Man sentenced to death in Egypt for 1993 assassination plot lives in London.
- He now runs a honey business from a north London lock-up.
- Case raises fresh questions over UK asylum and extradition policy.
New here? Start with this
The 1993 attack was one of a wave of assassination attempts and bombings carried out in Egypt during the 1990s by militant Islamist groups seeking to overthrow the government. Atef Sedki, then Egypt's prime minister, survived a car bomb aimed at his convoy in Cairo, but a 12-year-old schoolgirl passing by was killed and many others were hurt. Egyptian courts later convicted a number of people over the plot, sentencing at least one man to death in his absence after he had already left the country.
Britain has long been a destination for people fleeing prosecution or unrest in the Middle East, including some convicted of serious offences abroad, because UK asylum and extradition law sets a high bar for sending people back to countries where they might face the death penalty or an unfair trial. This has meant that a small number of individuals wanted by foreign governments for terrorism-related crimes have been able to settle in the UK, obtain some form of leave to remain, and live largely unremarked lives for many years.
This case has drawn renewed attention because it involves someone convicted over a bombing that killed a child, now identified as running an ordinary small business in London, which raises broader questions about how such cases are monitored, what rights and protections apply once someone is settled in the UK, and whether the authorities here and in Egypt could or should revisit the matter.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Advocates of a firmer stance argue that Britain should not become a haven for a man convicted of plotting an assassination that instead killed a twelve-year-old girl, regardless of how long ago the offence took place. They contend that allowing such individuals to settle, work and build ordinary lives here undermines public confidence in the asylum and extradition systems, sends a troubling signal to victims of terrorism, and that national security and diplomatic relationships with allies such as Egypt are better served by pursuing extradition or removal wherever legally possible.
The case against
Those defending his continued presence in the UK point to Britain's long-standing principle of not extraditing or deporting people to countries where they could face the death penalty or an unfair trial, noting that Egyptian courts, particularly military and in-absentia proceedings from that era, have been widely criticised by human rights bodies for lacking due process and being used against political opponents. They argue that decades have passed, that he has built a lawful and unremarkable livelihood in Britain, and that upholding non-refoulement and fair-trial safeguards even for unpopular individuals is precisely what distinguishes a rights-respecting justice system from the one he fled.