Lubna Speitan Sues Greenwich Over Israel Funds

Key Points

• Greenwich Council has conceded that a clause in its pension fund investment strategy was unlawful, as reported by the Public Interest Law Centre.
• Pro-Palestine activist Lubna Speitan, a founding member of Greenwich Palestine Alliance, has launched legal action against the council.
• The legal challenge targets the council’s failure to divest over £60 million in investments linked to companies with interests in Israel.
• The unlawful clause claimed the pension fund “cannot exclude investments in order to pursue boycotts, divestment and sanctions against foreign nations and UK defence industries”.
• Ms Speitan is a British-Palestinian contemporary artist and activist who has spoken about her family’s experiences under what she describes as the “brutal Israeli apartheid state”.
• The case is being handled by the Public Interest Law Centre, which confirmed the council’s concession on the clause’s legality.
• This action follows broader campaigns by London councils to reconsider investments tied to Israel, amid ongoing pro-Palestine activism.
• The Greenwich Pension Fund is part of the Local Government Pension Scheme, implicated in funding controversial investments.
• Ms Speitan’s statement highlights decades of alleged attacks, displacement, torture, and slaughter against Palestinians, partly sustained by local council investments.

Greenwich (South London News) February 3, 2026 – A pro-Palestine activist has launched legal proceedings against Greenwich Council after the authority conceded that a key clause in its pension fund investment strategy was unlawful, according to the Public Interest Law Centre. Lubna Speitan, founding member of the Greenwich Palestine Alliance, is challenging the council’s refusal to divest more than £60 million from companies linked to Israel. This development marks a significant victory for campaigners pressing local authorities to align investments with ethical concerns over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

What Triggered the Legal Action?

The legal challenge stems from Greenwich Council’s pension fund policy, which included a clause prohibiting divestment for purposes of boycotts, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) against foreign nations or UK defence industries. As confirmed by the Public Interest Law Centre, the council has now conceded that this clause was unlawful. This admission came prior to the formal legal action but failed to prompt the desired divestment, prompting Ms Speitan’s intervention.

Lubna Speitan, described across reports as a British-Palestinian contemporary artist and activist, initiated the proceedings through the Public Interest Law Centre. The centre, acting on her behalf, noted that the council’s stance persisted despite the legal flaw in its policy. Ms Speitan’s group, the Greenwich Palestine Alliance, has been vocal in local campaigns against such investments.

Who Is Lubna Speitan and What Does She Say?

Ms Speitan has articulated a deeply personal motivation for the legal action. In a statement provided to MyLondon, she 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.”

As a founding member of the Greenwich Palestine Alliance, Ms Speitan represents a broader activist network in the borough. Her background as a contemporary artist adds a cultural dimension to her advocacy, blending art with political activism focused on Palestinian rights. Reports emphasise her British-Palestinian identity, underscoring the personal stakes in her campaign against local investments.

Why Does the Pension Fund Clause Matter?

The contested clause explicitly barred the Greenwich Pension Fund from excluding investments to support BDS movements targeting foreign nations or UK defence sectors. According to the Public Interest Law Centre’s announcement, Greenwich Council conceded its unlawfulness, acknowledging that such restrictions contravene legal standards for pension fund management. This concession highlights tensions between local investment policies and emerging judicial interpretations of ethical divestment obligations.

The Greenwich Pension Fund forms part of the wider Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS), pooling resources across UK councils. Campaigners argue that these funds indirectly support companies implicated in Israeli activities in occupied territories, prompting calls for transparency and divestment. The clause’s downfall could set a precedent for other councils facing similar challenges.

How Has Greenwich Council Responded?

Greenwich Council has not issued a detailed public rebuttal in available reports, but its concession on the clause’s illegality represents an implicit acknowledgment of procedural errors. The authority manages investments exceeding £60 million tied to Israel-linked firms, as highlighted in the legal claim. Despite this, no immediate divestment has occurred, fuelling the activist’s case.

Local government bodies like Greenwich Council operate under fiduciary duties to balance financial returns with ethical considerations. The council’s pension strategy, now partially invalidated, reflects broader UK debates on whether public funds should engage in geopolitical boycotts. Officials have yet to comment extensively, leaving the concession as the primary official response.

What Is the Public Interest Law Centre’s Role?

The Public Interest Law Centre (PILC) is spearheading the legal effort, confirming Greenwich Council’s concession in public statements. PILC specialises in cases advancing public interest, particularly around human rights and ethical governance. Their involvement lends legal weight to Ms Speitan’s challenge, framing it as a test of pension funds’ compliance with divestment laws.

As reported by MyLondon, PILC stated that the council admitted the clause was unlawful in claiming it “cannot exclude investments in order to pursue boycotts, divestment and sanctions against foreign nations and UK defence industries”. This precise attribution underscores PILC’s pivotal role in exposing the policy flaw.

What Broader Context Surrounds London Councils’ Investments?

This case emerges amid heightened scrutiny of London councils’ investments in Israel-linked companies. A related MyLondon article details moves by other councils to halt such investments, linking to a piece titled “London councils move to stop investing”. Greenwich’s situation fits into a pattern of pro-Palestine campaigns pressuring local authorities nationwide.

The Local Government Pension Scheme administers billions, with portions invested in firms like defence contractors or those operating in contested areas. Activists, including the Greenwich Palestine Alliance, argue these ties perpetuate conflict. Greenwich Council’s £60 million exposure positions it as a focal point in South London activism.

When Did the Concession Occur and What Happens Next?

Reports do not specify the exact date of Greenwich Council’s concession, but it preceded Ms Speitan’s legal filing, as per the Public Interest Law Centre. The action was publicly announced around early 2026, aligning with ongoing Gaza-related tensions. Court proceedings are at an early stage, with potential for wider ramifications.

PILC anticipates the case could compel divestment reviews across similar funds. Ms Speitan’s challenge may proceed to judicial review if unresolved, testing the balance between investment prudence and international law obligations.

Where Does This Fit in UK BDS Campaigns?

The Greenwich case exemplifies the UK BDS movement’s shift towards legal avenues. Pro-Palestine groups have targeted councils since the Israel-Hamas conflict intensified, citing pension funds’ roles. Greenwich Palestine Alliance’s efforts mirror national campaigns, with Ms Speitan’s profile amplifying local visibility.

UK guidance on ethical investments has evolved, with some councils adopting divestment policies. However, clauses like Greenwich’s aimed to insulate funds from political pressure, now deemed unlawful. This ruling could embolden parallel actions elsewhere.

Why Is Ethical Divestment Controversial?

Divestment debates pit financial stability against moral imperatives. Councils must maximise returns for pensioners while navigating global politics. Critics of BDS argue it politicises investments; supporters, like Ms Speitan, view it as accountability for alleged atrocities.

Greenwich’s unlawful clause sought neutrality but overreached legally. The £60 million figure underscores the scale, potentially affecting thousands of local pension holders. Neutral observers note the challenge’s focus on legality, not ideology.

How Might This Impact Other Councils?

A successful outcome could cascade, prompting LGPS-wide reviews. London neighbours have faced similar pressures, per MyLondon’s coverage. PILC’s involvement signals potential class actions, reshaping public fund strategies.

Ms Speitan’s victory on the clause alone advances campaigners’ aims, pressuring councils to scrutinise Israel ties. Financial analysts caution against hasty divestments risking returns, yet ethical investing gains traction post-concession.

In-depth analysis reveals Greenwich Council’s policy as emblematic of wider LGPS vulnerabilities. Ms Speitan’s persistence, backed by PILC, highlights activism’s legal pivot. As proceedings unfold, South London’s pension landscape faces transformation.