The Independent Inquiry relating to Afghanistan has called an open hearing after revealing a “significant and unexpected increase” in Ministry of Defence documentation relevant to its investigation that has not been disclosed.
The hearing, scheduled for Friday 25 September at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, will seek assurances from the Ministry of Defence’s legal team over the disclosure issue.
The development raises questions over the scale of material yet to be provided to the Inquiry and to ask why it was not identified and disclosed earlier. It has been reported by The Telegraph that the latest cache amounts to 97 million new documents.
The Inquiry is examining allegations concerning the conduct of British special forces during operations in Afghanistan, as well as the adequacy of subsequent investigations into alleged wrongdoing.
The Inquiry itself describes the increase in documentation as both “significant” and “unexpected”.
The disclosure issue also raises a wider question about why the Inquiry has taken so long, especially amid reporting that its costs have risen so sharply. By March 2026, the overall cost of the Inquiry and the Ministry of Defence’s response to it had reached £58 million. The MoD said 74 of its employees were spending more than half their working time on the Inquiry. The Inquiry’s own expenditure was £14.68 million by the end of 2024-25.
When the Inquiry began, its chairman, Lord Justice Sir Charles Haddon-Cave, indicated that he hoped to report, at least on an interim basis, within roughly 12 to 18 months. More than three and a half years later, no findings have been published. The Inquiry has said that its work proved more extensive and complicated than anticipated, but it has also pointed specifically to delays in the MoD providing material.
The latest revelation therefore raises an uncomfortable question.
Are the Ministry of Defence operating, deliberately or otherwise, a “go-slow” approach to disclosure?
The MoD says it remains fully committed to the Inquiry and argues that the seriousness and complexity of the allegations require a thorough investigation. But the discovery of a “significant and unexpected” increase in relevant documentation that has still not been disclosed makes that question increasingly relevant.
Did you find this story interesting? Please support AOAV's work and donate.
Donate