Former Defence Secretary Ben Wallace is facing scrutiny over SAS war crimes allegations and changes to the Overseas Operations Bill, which have raised serious concerns about military accountability and legal protections. This amendment, proposed while Sir Ben was aware of serious allegations against the SAS, has raised concerns among government officials and human rights advocates.
The allegations in question involve extrajudicial killings by the SAS on night raids in Afghanistan between 2010 and 2013. These incidents are currently the subject of a public inquiry led by Lord Justice Haddon-Cave, where Sir Ben is expected to give evidence on Monday. The modification to the bill effectively placed these allegations outside the typical timeframe for prosecution, prompting accusations of shielding the regiment from accountability.
The bill originally intended to protect British troops from what the government termed “vexatious” legal claims for actions taken over 10 years ago. However, under Sir Ben’s guidance, the timeframe was halved, causing controversy. Critics, including Dominic Grieve, a former Attorney General, argue that the changes were inappropriate given the context. “If ministers knew there were potential prosecutions related to SAS operations during that time, it’s troubling that they would seek to reduce the time limit,” Grieve told the BBC.
Recent revelations about SAS war crimes allegations have intensified the spotlight on Ben Wallace’s role in amending the Overseas Operations Bill, which critics argue could undermine his military record.
The Ministry of Defence and Sir Ben have both been tight-lipped in response to the ongoing inquiry, though Sir Ben characterised questions surrounding his involvement as “leading and inaccurate” in a recent social media post. Meanwhile, Lieutenant Colonel Nicholas Mercer, the army’s top lawyer during the Iraq invasion, has suggested that the changes might have been an attempt to obscure the allegations under the guise of addressing false claims against service personnel.
The Overseas Operations Bill, which aimed to prevent repeated investigations of historical allegations, was fiercely debated in Parliament. Concerns were raised by senior military figures and human rights groups, who feared it would give troops de facto immunity from prosecution for serious crimes like torture and extrajudicial killings. Originally, the bill proposed a “triple lock” against prosecution after 10 years, but this was altered, excluding offences such as rape, sexual violence, and, eventually, war crimes.
At the time the bill was introduced, the Royal Military Police had already conducted multiple investigations into SAS activities in Afghanistan, examining over 60 deaths without resulting in prosecutions. Additionally, Sir Ben had been briefed about concerns over the adequacy of these investigations and was aware that critical video evidence was missing.
The bill, now law, excludes war crimes, genocide, and torture from the presumption against prosecution, but the impact of the initial changes has left lingering questions. Tessa Gregory, representing bereaved Afghan families, expressed concerns that the amendments were made with full knowledge of ongoing investigations into serious misconduct by UK Special Forces.
With Sir Ben’s upcoming testimony, the inquiry will be a crucial moment in clarifying the government’s handling of these sensitive and potentially damaging allegations. For more updates on this developing story and related defence issues, visit EyeOnLondon.
