In a decision that raises some questions about military transparency and accountability, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) has confirmed that five members of the UK’s Special Air Service (SAS) will not face charges over the 2022 killing of a suspected jihadist in Syria.
The elite troops had faced potential court martial proceedings for what was alleged to be excessive use of force during an operation against a man reportedly seen wearing a suicide vest and vowing to “blow up infidels”. While the precise location and date of the incident remain undisclosed, the MoD’s decision to end the investigation concludes nearly two years of scrutiny by the Royal Military Police (RMP) and the Service Prosecuting Authority.
The announcement has been greeted with predictable relief from the soldiers’ supporters. One unnamed associate told the Daily Mail that the men had been “put through the wringer” by a military hierarchy keen to demonstrate due process.
Yet beneath the surface of celebration lies a deeper, persistent dilemma: how robust – and how public – are the mechanisms by which the British state holds its most secretive forces to account?
The unknown cleared soldiers were accused of chasing and shooting a fleeing suspect in the dark, fearing he remained an imminent threat. It is not known if he was wearing a suicide vest. And if he was, why was he running away and not towards the soldiers?
Of course, on the battlefield, such judgements are often split-second. But in the court of public ethics, questions surely remain. Was this a lawful act of self-defence? Or was it an extrajudicial execution, committed far from the cameras and buried under national security secrecy?
If this was a one-off we could be assured. But this is not an isolated case.
Since 2023, a judge-led inquiry has been examining the allegations that UK special forces were involved in systemic and protracted unlawful killings of civilians during the Afghanistan conflict. Families have accused SAS units of carrying out a “campaign of murder” against unarmed Afghans. A senior MoD official who allegedly sought to obstruct investigations was later promoted to First Sea Lord.
Meanwhile, other accusations continue to swirl – from credible reports of UK special forces involvement in controversial operations in Libya to recent headlines that implicate SAS soldiers in a cocaine smuggling ring in Herefordshire. All of this paints a troubling picture: one in which Britain’s most elite military units are not just unaccountable, but shielded by layers of institutional opacity.
Dr Iain Overton, Executive Director of Action on Armed Violence (AOAV), said of the opaque process:
“When public trust in the military is eroded by accusations of murder, drug trafficking, and secrecy, transparency is not a luxury – it is a necessity. The question is no longer whether British forces operate in the shadows. It is whether the rule of law can reach into those shadows.”
The MoD insists its personnel are “respected worldwide” and that they are “held to the highest standards.” But are they, really?
Recent history offers little comfort. The RMP – the military’s own police force – has faced sustained criticism for its failings in investigating war crimes. And the decision to drop this latest case comes not through public hearing or transparent judicial process, but through an opaque, bureaucratic pathway that is largely invisible to the British public.
We have to trust a system that has lost all trust.
If the inquiry into Afghanistan – now well into its second year – finds men guilty (or not guilty) and results in firm prosecutions (or not) and open lessons, trust might be regained. It might signal a new era of accountability. But many remain sceptical. Past experience suggests the establishment is more likely to shield its own than to hold them to account. The gut feeling of AOAV is that this will all be brushed under the carpet one way or another and SAS veterans officers will say that this was as it should be. They shoujld be held to a different legal standard.
We disagree.
This is not a call to condemn soldiers who face daily threats in volatile theatres of war. But it is a call to ask: who investigates the investigators? And how can a country that claims to abide by the laws of war allow its most secretive forces to operate in a seeming legal black box?
The clearing of the five SAS soldiers may be the end of this specific case. But it should not be the end of the conversation.
The need for systemic reform—of the RMP, of the Service Prosecuting Authority, and of the broader military justice framework—is long overdue. The need for parliamentary oversight of these men is long overdue.
Justice must not only be done; it must be seen to be done. Especially when it wears the winged dagger of victory.
Did you find this story interesting? Please support AOAV's work and donate.
Donate