A former senior British Army officer has been ordered to appear before the official inquiry investigating alleged war crimes by UK forces in Afghanistan, despite his repeated attempts to avoid giving evidence, claiming that doing so could incriminate him. But the inquiry chair, Lord Justice Haddon-Cave, made clear that the legal right not to self-incriminate is “a right for the witness to invoke, not a tool for their lawyers to use to avoid the process entirely.”
The officer, known only as Witness N1141, has previously refused to respond to questions about his time in command of a British unit involved in deadly night raids. He did so citing the legal right not to self-incriminate. His lawyers, part of the Ministry of Defence’s witness team, argued that forcing him to respond was “unreasonable” and could compromise his right to a fair trial under European human rights law.
But Lord Justice Haddon-Cave, who is chairing the Independent Inquiry Relating to Afghanistan (IIA), dismissed his argument. He ruled today that the public inquiry has the legal power to require witnesses to attend and give evidence, and that claims of privilege against self-incrimination must be made by the witness in person, not by lawyers in advance or on a blanket basis.
The Independent Inquiry Relating to Afghanistan (IIA) is investigating allegations that British Special Forces unlawfully killed dozens of unarmed Afghan civilians during night raids between 2010 and 2013. The inquiry seeks to uncover the truth behind claims of extrajudicial killings, cover-ups, and systemic failures in military oversight. It was established to assess whether UK forces breached international law, whether evidence was suppressed or manipulated, and whether victims’ rights were denied. Central to the inquiry is the role of senior officers, including those – like Witness N1141 – who led units accused of serious wrongdoing but have resisted cooperation, citing legal privileges.
N1141 had been asked to provide a detailed witness statement on nine areas, including his role as an officer commanding a Special Forces unit accused of unlawful killings and his relationships with Afghan partner forces. After being granted an extension to respond, he ultimately refused.
The Inquiry then issued a formal legal notice compelling him to reply — saying that if he wished to withhold his answers, he should explain why each one might incriminate him. His lawyers tried to have that order cancelled, arguing that he could not safely answer any of the questions and lacked access to key documents needed to defend himself.
The judge strongly rejected these claims saying that the inquiry process does not follow the same rules as criminal trials.
Lord Justice Haddon-Cave also made clear that it was “misconceived” to expect full access to all documents, since the Inquiry is not a criminal court but an independent investigation aimed at uncovering the truth.
Importantly, Haddon-Cave made it very clear that Witness N1141 must now appear in person before the Inquiry to give evidence. If he chooses to invoke his legal privilege, he must do so on a question-by-question basis, and the Inquiry will decide whether each claim is valid.
“The privilege against self-incrimination is a right for the witness to invoke, not a tool for their lawyers to use to avoid the process entirely,” Haddon-Cave said.
He also warned that refusing to answer questions could result in adverse inferences being drawn — potentially casting doubt on the witness’s credibility.
Dr Iain Overton, Executive Director of Action on Armed Violence (AOAV), said of the order: “Compelling senior officers to testify on this most serious of allegations is not just a legal necessity – it is a moral imperative. Only through full participation can we ensure that justice is served and the truth uncovered.”
Did you find this story interesting? Please support AOAV's work and donate.
Donate