Campaigner launches legal action against Greenwich council for failure to divest
Lubna Speitan, co-founder of Greenwich Palestine Alliance, has instigated legal action against Greenwich Council, challenging the authority’s failure to divest over £60m of investments in companies with interests in Israel.
Greenwich resident Lubna Speitan launched the legal challenge after the council conceded that a clause in its pension fund investment strategy was unlawful.
According to the Public Interest Law Centre which has taken on the case, Greenwich Council has conceded that the clause was unlawful in claiming that it “cannot exclude investments in order to pursue boycotts, divestment and sanctions against foreign nations and UK defence industries”.
Speitan, a British-Palestinian contemporary artist and campaigner, said: “For decades, I have watched helplessly as my Palestinian family and people have been subjected to constant attack, displacement, torture, and slaughter.
"It is sustained by the brutal Israeli apartheid state, a system funded in part by investments from our own local council through the Local Government Pension Scheme.
“By maintaining these investments, Greenwich has been a participant in the genocide of our people and family. The council’s concession that its policy was unlawful confirms what we have long argued: it always had the power to divest.”
'Divesting from genocide is not foreign policy'
Speitan added: “Communities Secretary Steve Reed recently claimed that councils could be at risk of being sued by suppliers who lose money, and could face paying substantial damages. ‘Councils should stay out of foreign conflicts and get on with the job of delivering local services’. It is a profound irony and distortion of truth.
“Divesting from genocide is not foreign policy, it is a fundamental duty to uphold law and basic morality for the communities you serve, rather than investing in injustice abroad.
"Our campaign is driven by Greenwich residents, pension scheme members, trade unions, and human rights organisations who demand this ethical accountability.
“History shows us the way. Councils across the UK once rightly divested from apartheid South Africa. We are simply demanding Greenwich apply those same principles to apartheid and genocidal Israel, (without dilution). Our case has proven they can.
“Now, Greenwich must act swiftly to implement full and permanent divestment from Israel. This landmark concession shatters the myth of powerlessness. Councils can no longer hide behind unlawful policies. This sends an unambiguous message to every council across the UK: ‘the false legal barriers are gone. You have the power to divest. You must now have the courage to do so’.”
Israel has regularly denied that its actions in Gaza amount to genocide and says it is justified as a means of self-defence against Hamas, a group deemed to be a terrorist organisation by the UK. However a United Nations commission determined in September 2025 that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza.
The Public Interest Law Centre’s Legal Director Helen Mowatt said: “For years, councils have wrongly claimed they lack the legal power to divest. Greenwich Council itself has operated this unlawful policy since at least 2020, without informing scheme members or the public that it knew the position was wrong until this legal challenge.
“Legally, councils can implement divestment, and this error in understanding must be widely disseminated – a point vital not only for investment panel members but also for community groups, grassroots campaigns, and activists.”
Sign-up for our free weekly newsletter - Salamander News in your inbox
The legal challenge
Greenwich Palestine Alliance have been campaigning for Greenwich Council to make an immediate, full and permanent divestment from Israel since 2023. According to data from the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Greenwich’s pension fund has invested more than £61.8m in companies with Israeli interests.
The council’s Responsible Investment Policy (RIP) does not currently make any reference to human rights, but on December 9, 2024, its Pension Panel did agree “to explore the proximity, exposure, and investment in companies involved in or associated with, or whose activities facilitate, human rights abuses, as well as companies operating in areas considered occupied territories under international law, with a view to review and update the Responsible Investment Policy and move away from such investment” following extensive lobbying from residents and campaigners.
Last September, the Pension Panel voted to put to pension scheme members an updated RIP that contains a new section on human rights. The section states: “The Pension Fund is committed to integrating human rights considerations into our investment decisions. We regularly review our investments to ensure they align with our values and support the protection of human rights globally.
“Upon identifying any concerns, the Fund will make representations to the London CIV (the investment pool for London-based Local Government Pension Schemes), the Local Authority Pension Fund Forum, or directly to investment managers to raise human rights issues. Our goal is to enhance engagement and promote positive change, ensuring that our investments contribute to a more sustainable and equitable world.”
However, Greenwich Palestine Alliance believes this change fails to take into account its demands for full divestment from Israel and that it is a “substantially watered down commitment” compared with the one it made in December 2024.
Campaigners also think the addition of this new section will have “no impact at all” on the council’s investment decisions.
Legal proceedings challenging the decision were issued on November 25, 2025.
Speitan argues that Greenwich failed to act in accordance with its Constitution, its Compliance Statement and the Local Government Pension Scheme (Management and Investment of Funds) Regulations 2016, in failing to give effect to an earlier decision of the panel of December 9, 2024, or otherwise failed to give adequate reasons as to why it changed course.
Her claim also argues that the council failed to conduct a lawful consultation or consider alternatives to its draft Responsible Investment Policy.
It also challenged Greenwich Council’s reliance on an Investment Strategy Statement containing an unlawful instruction, which stated that its fund “cannot exclude investments to pursue boycotts, divestment, and sanctions against foreign nations and UK defence industries”.
A High Court judge will now decide whether to allow a judicial review of the council’s decisions on the matter.
Greenwich Council's response
In response to this challenge, Greenwich Council conceded its Investment Strategy unlawfully stated that it could not pursue divestment from a foreign nation. However, the council also denied that this had any impact on its decision not to divest from Israel.
Campaigners have strongly rejected this, calling it “disingenuous” and arguing that the council clearly relied on unlawful information which prevented it from pursuing full divestment from Israel. This reliance, they argue, undermined all other divestment demands.
The council is currently consulting council employees on its draft RIP over a four-week period. Campaigners are encouraging employees to take a "clear and principled stand by rejecting all complicity in genocide and apartheid and committing to ethical investment that upholds international law and fundamental human rights.
In response to the legal challenge, a Greenwich Council spokesperson said: “We continue to share the deep concern about the ongoing situation in Gaza and Israel, where the devastating loss of life has been unimaginable. We are unable to comment any further due to ongoing legal proceedings, of which we await the outcome.”
Sign-up for our free weekly newsletter - Salamander News in your inbox
Read Next:
Luís Lago
