The UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) has officially acknowledged that UK Special Forces are the subject of a war crimes inquiry, marking the first time such confirmation has been made. On Wednesday, the MoD decided to abandon its previous attempts to restrict any mention of Special Forces' alleged involvement in war crimes in Afghanistan. This move came after pressure from bereaved families and various media outlets, including the BBC. The inquiry stems from extensive reporting over the years on alleged unlawful killings by the SAS. Defence Secretary Ben Wallace, in a statement ahead of an Independent Inquiry hearing regarding Afghanistan, stated that the allegations pertain to the conduct of UK Special Forces.

This decision to confirm the involvement of Special Forces in operations under scrutiny by the inquiry represents a reversal of the MoD's earlier stance. However, Wallace emphasized that this confirmation only applies to the specific context of this inquiry and should not be taken as an alteration of the government's longstanding position to refrain from commenting on the deployment or activities of the UK Special Forces. The MoD had previously argued that the inquiry should prevent the public disclosure of any evidence, documents, or passages confirming or denying the alleged involvement of Special Forces in the investigated operations. However, shortly before presenting their case to the inquiry chair, Lord Justice Haddon-Cave, MoD lawyers wrote to the inquiry stating their intention to abandon that part of their application.

This reversal, confirmed during the hearing on Wednesday, means that evidence regarding the involvement of UK Special Forces in the alleged unlawful killings in Afghanistan can be openly discussed during the inquiry hearings and reported publicly. The BBC conducted a comprehensive investigation that uncovered evidence indicating that one SAS unit, operating in Afghanistan between 2010 and 2011, was responsible for 54 suspicious killings during a six-month tour. The investigation also revealed specific cases that raised concerns within the UK Special Forces, including a 2012 raid by a different unit resulting in the deaths of two parents and severe injuries to their two infant sons.

While the MoD allows the discussion of Special Forces involvement, they are still pushing for Special Forces personnel to be granted automatic anonymity and for witness evidence related to the operations to be heard in closed hearings, away from the bereaved families and the public. The MoD's lawyer argues that naming specific UK Special Forces units or sub-units would jeopardize future capabilities and operations. Lawyers representing the families of Afghans killed in separate Special Forces operations argue that the restrictions sought by the MoD are unjustifiable and seriously undermine the inquiry's credibility.

Tessa Gregory, a partner at Leigh Day, the law firm representing the families, expressed concerns about the MoD's attempt to prevent evidence from being heard publicly, stating that the families have endured years of cover-up and obfuscation. Lord Justice Haddon Cave, speaking at the hearing's opening, emphasized the importance of public hearings to address public concerns but acknowledged that certain evidence might need to be heard in closed hearings due to national security considerations. The MoD stated that it is not appropriate for them to comment on cases within the scope of the Statutory Inquiry and that it is up to the inquiry team, led by Lord Justice Haddon-Cave, to determine which allegations are investigated.

During the inquiry, the Royal Military Police (RMP) revealed that it is currently investigating allegations of unlawful killings in Afghanistan and has received evidence from informants on a confidential basis. The RMP seeks its own restrictions in three areas: matters related to ongoing investigations, the identities of confidential informants, and the covert techniques and methods employed so far in its investigations. They emphasized the need to continue their investigations without prejudicing potential prosecutions or discouraging new informants from coming forward.