Recent Testimony Highlights Decision-Making in 2011
A public inquiry into alleged actions by UK Special Forces in Afghanistan has heard fresh evidence that concerns over possible unlawful killings by SAS troops were not passed to military police in part because of fears about the impact on troop morale and ongoing operations.
The testimony, summarised and released by the Independent Inquiry relating to Afghanistan, comes from a former senior officer known only as N1466. He described raising alarms in early 2011 about patterns of detainee deaths that appeared inconsistent with official reports.
Establishment and Scope of the Independent Inquiry
The Independent Inquiry relating to Afghanistan was launched by the UK government in December 2022. It is examining allegations of extrajudicial killings by British special forces, primarily the Special Air Service, during operations between mid-2010 and mid-2013.
Chaired by Lord Justice Sir Charles Haddon-Cave, the inquiry has gathered evidence from numerous witnesses, including in closed sessions to protect national security. Its work follows earlier investigations and a BBC Panorama documentary that first brought widespread attention to the claims.
The inquiry focuses on a period when UK special forces conducted night raids and detention operations in Helmand province and other areas as part of the wider international military effort in Afghanistan.
The 2011 Internal Review Instead of Police Referral
According to the latest evidence, the then Director of Special Forces decided against referring the concerns to the Royal Military Police. An internal review of tactics used by the SAS was commissioned instead.
Witnesses have told the inquiry that this choice meant military police remained unaware for years of the specific suspicions regarding extra-judicial killings and allegedly falsified post-operation reports. Under the Armed Forces Act 2006, there is a duty to report certain matters to service police when there is reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct.
The decision was taken despite the seriousness of the issues raised by officers within the special forces chain of command.
Reasons Cited for Avoiding Formal Investigation
A former chief of staff of UK Special Forces explained to the inquiry that an investigation by military police was seen as likely to disrupt operational tempo and damage morale within elite units. The concern was that such a step could affect the effectiveness of troops engaged in high-risk missions against Taliban fighters.
This perspective was echoed in testimony describing how protecting unit cohesion took precedence over immediate external scrutiny. The internal review was viewed by some as a limited measure that did not fully examine whether reports of detainees arming themselves after capture were accurate.
Details of the Alleged Incidents
The inquiry is looking at claims that SAS units repeatedly killed unarmed Afghan males, including individuals who had been detained. Some accounts describe raids where people hiding under mosquito nets were shot, later revealed in one case to be women and children.
Official reports often stated that detainees had picked up weapons and posed an immediate threat, justifying the use of lethal force. Whistleblowers have alleged that these accounts were fabricated to cover up unlawful killings.
One squadron is said to have been responsible for a high number of such deaths over a short period, prompting internal questions about whether the pattern indicated something beyond legitimate self-defence.
Whistleblower Accounts and Chain of Command Awareness
N1466, who served as Assistant Chief of Staff for Operations, told the inquiry he passed what he described as explosive evidence of possible criminal behaviour to senior leaders in February 2011. He stated that the director of special forces at the time was fully aware of the concerns yet chose not to involve the Royal Military Police.
Other testimony has referred to the SAS appearing to operate with a degree of latitude that some described as a golden pass. Concerns were reportedly known at high levels but not escalated as required.
These accounts build on earlier BBC reporting and investigations by organisations examining special forces accountability.
Impact on Subsequent Police Investigations
Because the initial concerns were not referred, the Royal Military Police only became aware of the full picture years later. This delay affected the timeliness and completeness of any criminal inquiries that followed.
By the time formal investigations began, some evidence may have been harder to gather, and memories of events had faded. The inquiry continues to examine how this affected the pursuit of accountability.
Ministry of Defence Position and Ongoing Support for Inquiry
The Ministry of Defence has stated that it remains fully committed to supporting the independent inquiry. It has authorised personnel to disclose relevant material and expressed gratitude to those providing evidence.
Officials have emphasised that the inquiry is the appropriate forum for examining these historical allegations. No comment has been made on specific testimony while proceedings continue.
Broader Implications for Special Forces Accountability
The evidence presented raises questions about how elite military units balance operational secrecy with legal obligations. Special forces operate in environments where rapid decisions are required, yet the inquiry highlights the need for robust oversight mechanisms.
Similar issues have arisen in other countries with special forces deployments, though each case has its own national context and legal framework. The UK inquiry represents one of the most detailed public examinations of such allegations to date.
Future Outlook for the Inquiry and Potential Outcomes
The inquiry is ongoing, with further evidence sessions and document releases expected. Its final report will set out findings on the allegations and any systemic issues identified in the handling of concerns.
Whatever the conclusions, the process has already brought greater transparency to events from more than a decade ago. It may influence future policies on reporting requirements and internal reviews within the armed forces.
Stakeholders, including veterans' groups and human rights organisations, continue to follow developments closely as the inquiry progresses toward its conclusions.