Allegations of a systematic effort to conceal possible war crimes by the SAS have intensified after a senior former officer testified that two former heads of all UK Special Forces suppressed explosive evidence more than a decade ago.
The claims were made during closed sessions of the Independent Inquiry relating to Afghanistan, a statutory investigation examining alleged extrajudicial killings by British special forces between 2010 and 2013. The testimony, now released in summary form, has sent shockwaves through military and political circles.
The officer, identified only as N1466, served among the highest ranks in UK Special Forces. He told the inquiry that in 2011, he passed “explosive” information suggesting “criminal behaviour” by SAS units in Afghanistan to the then–director special forces. However, he said the evidence was never forwarded to the Royal Military Police (RMP), despite a legal obligation to do so.
According to N1466, the failure to act was not limited to one commander. He alleged that the succeeding director special forces, who took over in 2012, “clearly knew there was a problem in Afghanistan” and also chose not to alert military police.
The officer said this amounted to a deliberate pattern of concealment at the highest levels. “It’s not just one director that has known about this,” he stated. “Special Forces leadership was very much suppressing the allegations.”
His remarks are among the most senior-level accusations yet made regarding the military chain of command’s handling of alleged SAS misconduct. They suggest that concerns over unlawful killings were not confined to isolated patrols or individual soldiers, but were recognised — and ignored — by those responsible for overseeing all UK Special Forces operations.
Under British law, commanding officers must promptly inform the RMP if there is even a possibility that someone under their command has committed a serious criminal offence. N1466’s account indicates that this obligation was knowingly disregarded.
The inquiry summaries confirmed that neither of the former directors passed the allegations to police investigators. Their identities cannot legally be reported under the rules governing the inquiry’s closed sessions.
The testimony further underscores longstanding concerns raised by human rights lawyers, families of Afghan victims and whistleblowers who have argued that potential war crimes were systematically buried within the chain of command. Several previous investigations into SAS conduct were closed without action, prompting accusations of institutional self-protection.
The Independent Inquiry, established in 2022, is the most comprehensive effort to date to uncover what happened during night raids in Afghanistan that allegedly resulted in the deaths of dozens of civilians. Many of the families affected claim that unarmed men were executed and the killings later justified through fabricated accounts of armed resistance.
N1466’s testimony adds weight to the view that the alleged wrongdoing was not only known internally but was actively shielded from scrutiny. He described passing evidence that he considered “explosive”, indicating criminal conduct, and expressed frustration that leadership chose to suppress rather than investigate.
Legal experts say the officer’s claims, if substantiated, could have profound implications — both for accountability within the armed forces and potentially for criminal liability among senior commanders who failed to act.
The Ministry of Defence has repeatedly insisted that UK forces operated within the law and that any credible allegations have been thoroughly examined. It has pledged to cooperate fully with the inquiry.
However, the emerging evidence paints a darker picture of a command structure unwilling to confront misconduct within its most elite units. With more testimony expected and further closed-session summaries yet to be released, pressure is mounting for transparency and accountability at the highest levels of the UK military.
The inquiry is expected to continue hearings into 2025, with its final report likely to reshape public understanding of Britain’s role in Afghanistan — and whether the nation’s most elite soldiers were shielded from justice for alleged crimes committed on the battlefield.
