The Ministry of Defence comes under intense scrutiny after a High Court hearing revealed systemic failures and political pressures derailing the resettlement of former Afghan special forces allied with British troops, prompting demands for urgent reform and transparency amid growing humanitarian concerns.
The resettlement process for former Afghan special forces members, especially those linked to elite units like CF333 and ATF444—the Triples—has ignited fierce criticism. Recent remarks during a High Court hearing characterized these processes as fundamentally broken, likening them to a "crime scene." Such statements not only highlight the severe inadequacies in how applications from thousands of Afghans who stood alongside British troops have been handled, but they also reveal a grim picture of the government’s inaction amidst a resurgence of threats from the Taliban since 2021.
Evidence presented in the High Court indicates that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) turned away many applications from individuals with credible ties to the Triples, even though these units were funded and trained by British forces. This blanket refusal policy raises alarming questions about the MoD's commitment to its obligations, leaving countless Afghans in fear for their lives because of their association with British military operations.
Police scrutiny intensified when it was revealed that only a limited number of applications—about 2,000—would be reviewed, and only those previously forwarded to UK special forces for assessment. This restrictive approach undermines any genuine attempts to address the systemic failures highlighted by legal experts. The court disclosed that decision-making within the MoD was rushed, driven by political pressure to expedite evaluations, raising serious doubts about the quality of these life-altering decisions.
Former veterans’ affairs minister Johnny Mercer exposed a troubling conflict of interest by allowing UK special forces to participate in decisions regarding their former Afghan allies, thereby raising valid concerns about bias and discriminatory practices that may jeopardize the safety of these individuals and their families.
Amidst this fallout, public outcry for accountability and transparency has become increasingly urgent. Legal advocates are demanding that the decision-making procedures of the MoD be brought into the open, emphasizing the critical nature of the stakes involved. As Thomas de la Mare KC, representing the claimants, pointedly noted, restoring trust is non-negotiable when lives hang in the balance.
In a rather belated acknowledgment of these issues, the MoD has caved to public pressure and agreed to reassess applications previously deemed ineligible but with credible ties to the Triples. Minister James Heappey announced plans to tighten the review process following extensive media scrutiny, which starkly contrasts with the cavalier approach that has persisted up until now.
Moreover, the recent merger of the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (ARAP) with the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme (ACRS) is framed as the MoD's attempt at a more streamlined operation. However, this initiative should have been implemented long ago, raising further questions about the government’s responsiveness to these pressing humanitarian challenges.
As this distressing situation unfolds, there is a palpable urgency in advocating for those Afghan allies who displayed remarkable bravery alongside British forces. Their futures are now strikingly uncertain, not just depending on judicial resolutions but on the government's capacity to confront its prior failures and regain the public's trust in the resettlement process. The pressing need for sanctuary for these individuals is not merely a matter of bureaucratic redress but a fundamental humanitarian crisis that the new government must urgently acknowledge.
Source: Noah Wire Services
Noah Fact Check Pro
The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.
Freshness check
Score:
8
Notes:
The narrative presents recent developments regarding the Ministry of Defence's (MoD) handling of Afghan special forces resettlement applications, with the earliest known publication date being May 21, 2025. This indicates a high level of freshness. The report cites a High Court hearing, suggesting the information is current and directly sourced from recent legal proceedings. However, similar reports have appeared in reputable outlets like The Guardian and BBC News in February 2024, indicating that while the core issue is longstanding, the specific details in this report are recent. ([theguardian.com](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/feb/19/uk-special-forces-blocked-resettlement-applications-from-elite-afghan-troops?utm_source=openai), [bbc.co.uk](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68332923?utm_source=openai)) The Independent's coverage appears to be original, with no evidence of recycled content. The narrative includes updated data, such as the High Court's characterization of the MoD's decision-making process, which may justify a higher freshness score but should still be flagged.
Quotes check
Score:
7
Notes:
The report includes direct quotes from the High Court hearing, notably describing the MoD's decision-making process as a 'disaster area' likened to a 'crime scene'. These specific phrases do not appear in earlier material, suggesting originality. However, similar sentiments have been expressed in previous reports, such as The Guardian's February 2024 article, which discusses the MoD's handling of Afghan special forces resettlement applications. ([theguardian.com](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/feb/19/uk-special-forces-blocked-resettlement-applications-from-elite-afghan-troops?utm_source=openai)) The Independent's report appears to be original, with no evidence of recycled content.
Source reliability
Score:
9
Notes:
The narrative originates from The Independent, a reputable UK news outlet known for its investigative journalism. The report cites a High Court hearing, indicating that the information is sourced from official legal proceedings. The inclusion of direct quotes from the hearing adds credibility to the report. The Independent's coverage appears to be original, with no evidence of recycled content.
Plausability check
Score:
8
Notes:
The claims regarding the MoD's handling of Afghan special forces resettlement applications align with previous reports from reputable outlets like The Guardian and BBC News, which have covered similar issues. The inclusion of direct quotes from the High Court hearing adds credibility to the report. The language and tone are consistent with typical journalistic standards. The Independent's coverage appears to be original, with no evidence of recycled content.
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): PASS
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): HIGH
Summary:
The narrative presents recent developments regarding the MoD's handling of Afghan special forces resettlement applications, with information sourced from a High Court hearing. The report includes original quotes and aligns with previous reputable coverage, indicating a high level of credibility. The Independent's coverage appears to be original, with no evidence of recycled content.