UK special forces director 'covered up war crimes', officer testifies

A senior officer gave evidence to closed hearings as part of the Afghanistan Inquiry (Ben Birchall/PA) Ben Birchall

Afghan families involved in the Afghanistan Inquiry have expressed concern that soldiers are refusing to give evidence about alleged war crimes. This follows testimony from a senior officer who claimed the director of UK special forces made a "conscious decision" to cover up potential war crimes committed between 2010 and 2013.

The officer, identified as N1466, served as assistant chief of staff for operations at UK special forces headquarters. He told the inquiry that N1802, the director of UK special forces at the time, suppressed information about alleged unlawful killings and initiated a review of tactics, techniques and procedures as what he called a "charade" and "warning shot."

Among the families represented in the inquiry are those of Imran and Bilal, who were 18 months and three years old in August 2012 when UK special forces raided their home in the village of Shesh Aba, Nimruz province. Their parents, Hussain Uzbakzai and Ruqquia Haleem, were allegedly shot dead during the raid. The children were seriously injured.

Legal team speaks out

Tessa Gregory, joint head of public law at Leigh Day, which represents the families, said after the release of N1466's testimony: «This is highly significant evidence from a very senior experienced officer in the UK headquarters of special forces who has made plain he believes that war crimes were committed in Afghanistan.»

She added: «Most poignantly the officer reflects that if more had been done to stop this conduct in 2011 other lives would have been saved.» Gregory said the families are «extremely concerned to hear that many of the soldiers who were on the ground during the operations are currently refusing to give evidence to the inquiry by relying on the right to privilege against self-incrimination.»

Details of alleged cover-up

N1466 became concerned in February 2011 about statistics from the SAS's deliberate detention operations, particularly the ratio of weapons found to enemies killed. He described the figures as «didn't seem credible» in his testimony. In April 2011, he met with N1802, which led to the tactics review.

In his witness statement, N1466 said: «I felt at the time that N1802 intended that the TTP review would have the effect of firing a warning shot across the bows of the sub-unit to encourage them to change their behaviour. [...] I was sure at the time and I remain sure that N1802 knew what was happening on the ground. [...] The speed of N1802's response and the absence of any further mention or investigation of unlawful activity only fortified my belief that he was aware of what was going on.»

N1466 described the review as an attempt by N1802 to manage the situation «in a way that I think indicated a desire to keep it low profile» and «way which limited the spread of the damage outside the headquarters.» He told the inquiry that N1802 never «ever talk about possible criminal activity.»

Previous investigations

Operation Northmoor, a £10 million investigation established in 2014, examined allegations of executions by special forces but resulted in no charges. A separate Royal Military Police investigation, Operation Cestro, referred three soldiers to the Service Prosecuting Authority, but none were prosecuted.

Government response

Defence Secretary John Healey wrote to special forces personnel acknowledging their professionalism and sacrifice, assuring them the Government «has your back.»

A Ministry of Defence spokesperson said: «The Government is fully committed to supporting the independent inquiry relating to Afghanistan as it continues its work, and we are hugely grateful to all former and current defence employees who have so far given evidence. [...] We also remain committed to providing the support that our special forces deserve, whilst maintaining the transparency and accountability that the British people rightly expect from their armed forces. [...] It is appropriate that we await the outcome of the inquiry's work before commenting further.»

Note: This article was created with Artificial Intelligence (AI).