Legal aid chiefs were today accused of a “ridiculous” cover-up after refusing to disclose the sums paid to a terror suspect who fled abroad in a burka — because it could damage his right to a fair hearing in court.

The rebuff — following a Freedom of Information request by the Evening Standard — comes despite a furious reaction from the Justice Secretary Chris Grayling when it was revealed earlier this year that Mohamed’s legal aid payments had been resumed despite his disappearance from a mosque in Acton last November.

Mr Grayling said that it was “completely unacceptable” that Mohamed, who was subject to “Tpim” counter-terrorism curbs because of his involvement with the Somali al-Shabaab terror group, was receiving public money after flouting British laws and fleeing in disguise.

The Legal Aid Agency has now declared, however, that the amount paid to Mohamed — who is thought to have received hundreds of thousands of pounds to fund his continuing legal battles with the government — cannot be revealed because it would be contrary to the “public interest”.

“Disclosure of information in respect of an individual’s legal aid status could prejudice the rights of the defendant in this case,” the agency stated. “This case is live and rulings are yet to be made. Release of information in respect of the legal aid of an individual whose case is still live could generate unhelpful debate, speculation and potentially undermine the administration of justice.”

Keith Vaz, the chairman of the Commons home affairs committee, said:“It is ridiculous that the Legal Aid Agency is refusing to provide this information. Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed has been missing for months. It is essential that we know how much the taxpayer is paying. It also raises the question as to why the Home Secretary has not sought to strike his case out on the grounds that he has disappeared.”

Tory MP Nick de Bois, a member of the Commons justice select committee, said: “Legal aid is public money and taxpayers have a right to know how it is being spent. Bureaucrats on the other hand do not have a right to cover up the money they spend. No self-respecting judge will be influenced by how much is spent on a defence.”