Former Defence Secretary Sir Ben Wallace faces increasing scrutiny over a controversial change to the Overseas Operations Bill, which could shield the SAS from prosecution for alleged war crimes committed during night raids in Afghanistan. The modification, reported by Hannah O’Grady and Joel Gunter – the BBC team that produced the Panorama documentaries exposing allegations of SAS killings in Afghanistan – reduced the timeframe for prosecution from 10 years to five, affecting the ability to bring charges against the Special Air Service (SAS) for actions dating between 2010 and 2013.
As the BBC reported: “The Overseas Operations Bill had originally proposed British troops be protected from war crimes prosecutions relating to alleged offences more than 10 years ago. But under Sir Ben, the 10-year clause was halved to five years. The change had the effect of pushing war crimes allegations against the SAS outside the cut-off period for bringing a prosecution under normal circumstances.”
At the time the altered bill was presented to Parliament, Sir Ben Wallace was reportedly aware of the allegations of as many as 60 extrajudicial killings by the SAS in Afghanistan. Despite this, the five-year clause was introduced, potentially pushing those allegations beyond the prosecutorial cut-off. Senior government sources confirmed that Wallace took personal charge of the bill’s passage, with no changes made without his approval.
The original bill proposed a “triple lock” protecting soldiers from prosecution after 10 years, except for rape and sexual violence, with war crimes like extrajudicial killings and torture still covered by the legal protections.
The public inquiry, led by Lord Justice Haddon-Cave, is currently investigating the wider allegations of harm, and Sir Ben Wallace is giving evidence in the coming days. The former Attorney General, Dominic Grieve, who had expressed concerns about the bill at its introduction, commented that the change “raises questions” about the government’s intent.
Legal experts and former military officers, including Lieutenant Colonel Nicholas Mercer, have echoed these concerns, questioning whether the change was a deliberate attempt to cover up the allegations under the guise of addressing “vexatious claims” against British soldiers. Mercer, the army’s top lawyer during the Iraq invasion, warned that the bill’s amendment posed serious ethical issues.
Criticism of the bill also extends to human rights advocates, who argue that it grants soldiers undue immunity from prosecution, shielding them from accountability for serious crimes such as extrajudicial killings and torture.
Tessa Gregory, a partner at the law firm Leigh Day, which represents the bereaved Afghan families at the public inquiry, told the BBC that Sir Ben was “it would be a matter of real concern for the bereaved families we represent if it was [Sir Ben] who personally decided that the presumption against criminal prosecution in the bill should apply to all offences more than five years ago, rather than the 10 years recommended by his department.”
In a statement responding to the BBC’s inquiries, Sir Ben Wallace declined to provide a direct comment, calling the questions “inappropriate” ahead of his scheduled appearance at the inquiry. However, he dismissed the BBC’s report as “leading and inaccurate” on social media.
Dr. Iain Overton, of Action on Armed Violence, said of the bill’s handling, “This inquiry and the events surrounding it keep raising more questions than are answered.”
Did you find this story interesting? Please support AOAV's work and donate.
Donate