Great British Betrayal

The UK has turned away hundreds of Afghan commandos paid and trained by the British military. Some had complained about or say they witnessed war crimes by the same UK forces who were given veto power over their applications, with insiders warning of a conflict of interest.

Lighthouse Reports recently revealed that hundreds of Afghans who served in special forces units that were funded, recruited and paid by the British had been denied relocation to the UK despite compelling evidence of their service with the UK.

In collaboration with The Independent and Sky News, we found that dozens of these former commandos – who are prime targets for the Taliban whom they spent years fighting against in joint missions with the British – had been tortured, beaten or murdered as a result of being left behind by the UK.

In light of our findings and wider campaigning, the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD), which is responsible for the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (ARAP) scheme, admitted earlier this month that there had been a “failure of process” and that it would individually review all rejected cases of these commandos – known as the ‘Triples’.

But questions remain about how such erroneous and in some cases life-threatening decisions were made – including whether the rejections were in any way linked to an ongoing public inquiry into alleged war crimes committed by UK Special Forces (UKSF) in Afghanistan.

In collaboration with BBC Panorama, we can now reveal that it was UKSF – the very forces that founded, trained, and relied on the Triples for operational support – that had been behind the decisions to reject the Triples since at least the start of last year.

An internal document we obtained reveals that UKSF had veto power over Triples applications since at least January 2023. That year there was a wave of rejections of the Triples, with many refusal letters claiming they did not serve “in partnership or alongside” the British despite many providing clear evidence to show that they did.

Former members of UKSF unit the SAS said that this decision-making power over resettlement applications created a conflict of interest, because it gave UKSF a veto over applications at a time when the forces were under investigation by the public inquiry for alleged war crimes during operations where the Afghan units were present. The public inquiry has the power to call witnesses who are in the UK, but not non-UK citizens who are overseas.

We discovered that members of the Triples who complained about and/or say they witnessed war crimes allegedly committed by UKSF have had their applications refused, despite providing reams of evidence to prove their eligibility.

METHODS

We obtained an internal government policy document which reveals that UKSF was granted veto power over Triples applications from at least January 2023. The document stipulates that if the UKSF does not approve a Triples applicant, a rejection letter should be directly sent out to the individual in question.

We’ve also seen internal MoD email correspondence in which civil servants administering the relocation scheme describe being unable to challenge UKSF rejections, even where they believed there was a strong case for resettlement.

By speaking to both current and former members of UKSF and the wider military, as well as UK government sources, we were able to build up an understanding of the role UKSF played in Triples’ relocation decisions. Sources also provided us with information about records kept by the MoD of the Triples’ service.

We spoke with former members of the Triples who provided us with the reams of documentation they had submitted to support their ARAP applications which were later rejected. We analysed their rejection emails to assess the reasons given, and spoke with lawyers who informed us that the rejection decisions appeared at odds with the ARAP eligibility criteria.

STORYLINES

Two former Triples officers we spoke to who had their applications rejected worked on operations in Afghanistan that are now under scrutiny by the public inquiry.

One made a number of complaints to the British military at the time of those operations. He alleged that the SAS had committed war crimes, and even withdrew his men from their supporting role in SAS operations in protest at what he alleged were extrajudicial killings of Afghan civilians.

Alongside their ARAP applications, the officers submitted among other evidence a printed invitation to the SAS headquarters in the UK to talk about the Triples, letters from the British embassy regarding pay and photographs with senior members of UKSF.

Both officers are now in hiding, moving from house to house. “I have been left alone in the midst of hell,” one said. “I was sure that my British colleagues and friends, who we worked for several years alongside, would help me to evacuate to safety. Now I feel that the sacrifices I made have been forgotten.”

One former UKSF officer described the force’s role in approving or denying applications as a “clear conflict of interest”.

“At a time when certain actions by UKSF are under investigation by a public inquiry, their headquarters also had the power to prevent former Afghan special forces colleagues and potential witnesses to these actions from getting safely to the UK,” they said.

Another former UKSF officer said: “At best it’s not appropriate, at worst it looks like they’re trying to cover their tracks.”

Our reporting also raises questions about the MoD’s defence of decisions to reject the Triples. Armed Forces Minister James Heappey told the House of Commons in December that it was not possible to verify members of the units because the MoD does “not hold employment records of Afghan special forces” and that there would be “simply no way to determine who did or did not serve with those units”.

However, former members of the SAS who served alongside the Triples dismissed the minister’s account, saying that the Triples were in fact paid directly by the British and that records were kept for every payment.

“I’ve seen spreadsheets where it’s very clear we paid them, not just for their service but for their skills, rank, and number of operations,” said one former officer.

If you have information about this story that you want to share, contact may@lighthousereports.com