A photograph captures a moment of desperate solidarity: a protester holding a portrait of Kamran Ahmed outside the Department of Health, a visual echo of the growing concern for pro-Palestine activists held in custody.
Kamran Ahmed, 31, from east London, is locked in a harrowing battle for his life. He has declared, with chilling clarity, “I am dying in my cell,” detailing a struggle to breathe and to focus, as days bleed into weeks without sustenance.
His hunger strike has now reached a terrifying milestone – 59 days – equaling the duration of IRA prison leader Bobby Sands’ fatal protest in 1981. The specter of that historical tragedy looms large, fueling fears for Ahmed’s survival.
Zarah Sultana MP, a vocal advocate for the group, warns that Ahmed is facing imminent death. Hospitalized for the sixth time on day 59, his case mirrors the grim trajectory of the 1981 IRA hunger strikers, where two perished before day 59, and all ten were lost within 73 days.
The protest began with eight individuals, initially detained on remand following charges related to demonstrations at Elbit Systems in August 2024 and RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire the previous June. Their actions were acts of defiance, aimed at disrupting operations they opposed.
Now, these activists have endured over a year in pre-trial detention, exceeding the UK’s typical six-month limit. This prolonged confinement has become a central grievance, adding urgency to their desperate plea.
Recently, Teuta Hoxha ended her 58-day hunger strike, but her release from protest has brought no guarantee of safety. Hospitalized immediately after, she is now at risk of re-feeding syndrome, a potentially fatal condition that can occur when nutrition is reintroduced too quickly after prolonged starvation.
The protesters’ demands are clear and resolute: an end to censorship within the prison system, immediate bail, a fair trial, the de-proscription of Palestine Action, and the closure of Elbit Systems. They seek basic rights and a platform for their voices to be heard.
Heba Muraisi’s situation adds another layer of distress. She is protesting her transfer from HMP Bronzefield in Surrey to HMP New Hall in West Yorkshire, a move that isolates her from her family and vital support network, over 200 miles away.
Currently, three activists – Muraisi, Ahmed, and Lewie Chiaramello – continue the hunger strike, while others have paused or ended their protests. Muraisi stands out as the longest-running protester, now on day 66 of her ordeal.
The possibility of returning Muraisi to HMP Bronzefield is seen as a potential turning point, a key factor that could influence her decision to end her protest. The location of her imprisonment has become a symbol of her isolation and the perceived indifference to her well-being.
Sultana argues that the demands are entirely reasonable, stating that these individuals should not be imprisoned at all. She emphasizes they pose no threat to the public, have been held beyond legal limits, and are unjustly denied bail.
She delivers a stark warning, asserting that the government will bear responsibility if it fails to engage in dialogue with the hunger strikers and their representatives, suggesting the consequences could be devastating.
Healthcare providers at HMP New Hall affirm their commitment to providing compassionate, evidence-based care, managing refusing prisoners in accordance with established policies and in collaboration with the wider NHS.
The government, however, maintains its position. Lord Timpson, minister of state for prisons, acknowledges the concern but points to the history of hunger strikes within the prison system and the established procedures for ensuring prisoner safety.
He insists that hospital care is not refused and that healthcare teams continuously monitor the situation. He also highlights that the prisoners are charged with serious offenses and that remand decisions are made by independent judges.
Ministers, however, will not intervene, citing the constitutional principle of the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary. They maintain that any intervention would be inappropriate and undermine the legal process.
