The SAS blocked UK visas for Afghan special forces soldiers, perhaps fearing that they would be able to produce evidence incriminating the SAS in the shooting of unarmed civilians. That was the striking implication of a BBC Panorama investigation this week – with the Ministry of Defence confirming that it is undertaking a review of 2,000 cases where Afghan applications were blocked by the SAS.
Under the ‘ARAP’ scheme, introduced after the fall of Afghanistan in August 2021, Afghans employed by the British government had a near-automatic right to resettle in the UK. This was because they were among the people most likely to face retribution from the Taliban after the fall of Kabul. The Afghans who were considered most at risk were elite troops trained to the highest level, such as units 333 and 444, the so-called ‘triples’.
Sarah Fenby-Dixon, a consultant with Refugee Aid Network, has been supporting dozens of the triples who were left behind after the fall of Afghanistan. She says that they move all the time, living in cellars as the Taliban search for them in relentless house-to-house sweeps. Many of those she works with – who have a clear case to be settled in the UK, backed up with photographs and supporting statements – have had their visa applications rejected. The news that they may have been blocked from the UK by the SAS has shocked her. ‘If [the SAS] have sacrificed all these guys’ lives to protect themselves, how does that uphold military honour? It’s beyond belief.’
The former head of Afghan special forces, General Sami Sadat, said that the SAS were wrong to block the applications, not least because ‘The Afghan forces will never go to the courts and incriminate their own buddies. This is against any camaraderie or loyalty.’
It would not be the first time that SAS soldiers have sought to hamper investigations into their activities in Afghanistan. The public inquiry into the issue has faced challenges uncovering evidence because of the SAS code of omertà. Following the new claims that the SAS have been blocking visa applications, the inquiry Chair, Sir Charles Haddon-Cave, said, ‘If ever there was a time for individuals to come forward with information for the inquiry, it is now.’
The Veterans’ Minister, Johnny Mercer, told the inquiry this week how information was kept from him when he tried to find out what had happened when he was first appointed in 2019. After allegations emerged ten years ago that unarmed civilians, detainees and children were routinely shot during British special forces operations, there was a police investigation, codenamed ‘Northmoor’. This looked into more than 600 cases, but could not substantiate any claims. It came up against the time-worn military response to outside investigations: ‘I cannot recollect…’
Northmoor looked in detail at ten operations chosen at random, but drew a blank. The lack of helmet-camera footage on any of these operations surprised Mercer. He served with distinction as an officer in Afghanistan, and knew that since 2006, helmet cameras were used on all operations. It was a ‘Go or No Go’ requirement. He has positioned himself as the soldiers’ friend, and he said to the director of Special Forces that he wanted to see what evidence they had about the claims, so ‘I could stand up in the House of Commons and defend him and his unit.’ The response was just a shrug. Mercer said, ‘It was simply not plausible’ that there was no video footage from any of the operations. He said that it suggested to him that ‘You guys are not telling me the truth.’
The absence of any information to disprove the allegations continued to trouble him, but the then-Defence Secretary Ben Wallace failed to investigate, saying ‘there is no new evidence, Johnny’. When internal Ministry of Defence emails emerged in the Sunday Times in August 2020, Mercer said that crossed a red line. The very information he had asked for was now out in public. He felt he was ‘being gamed.’
It was clearly complex fighting in Afghanistan. The Daily Mail journalist Mark Nicol gave evidence as well to the inquiry this week. He had interviewed SAS sources in 2017, who admitted that they did kill some detainees, and would plant weapons on the bodies to make it look as if they had been armed. They justified this by saying that phone intercepts or fingerprints were not regarded as evidence by Afghan courts or police. And often men they knew to be Taliban commanders were released after a few days, so they became more aggressive, killing far more people. Nicol quoted his source as saying, ‘We got fed up with that and got smart.’
It was not a clean war, but many of those who fought bravely alongside British soldiers are now rotting in cellars in Afghanistan, fearing a knock on the door from people who have no moral or legal qualms about shooting unarmed detainees. That is to the SAS’s shame.
