Veterans’ minister Johnny Mercer is this week facing a deadline to hand over the names of those who he said told him about alleged war crimes in Afghanistan.
The government minister has been ordered to give the names to the Afghanistan Inquiry or face a potential prison sentence for failing to comply.
Mercer gave evidence to the official inquiry last month but did not name the individuals who he said told him about allegations of murder and a cover-up while he was a backbench MP.
Inquiry chairman Sir Charles Haddon-Cave gave Mercer until Friday, 5 April, to provide a witness statement containing the names, which he repeatedly refused to give in person.
The Plymouth MP was told during his evidence that his decision to “refuse to answer legitimate questions” were “disappointing… surprising… and completely unacceptable”.
Addressing inquiry counsel Oliver Glasgow KC last month, Mercer said: “The one thing you can hold on to is your integrity and I will be doing that with these individuals.”
The minister was then served with a Section 21 notice on March 13, which compels him to hand over the names. The inquiry has insisted they will be “treated in confidence”.
It also states that if Mercer fails to comply without a reasonable excuse, it would be “a criminal offence punishable with imprisonment and/or a fine”.
Sir Charles also said the High Court could enforce the order through contempt of court proceedings, which “may result in imprisonment”.
He also said if Mercer believed it was unreasonable for him to hand over the names, or if he was unable to comply with the order, he would have to appeal in writing by 3 April.
The inquiry will examine whether a unit, known as UKSF1, had a policy of executing males of “fighting age” who posed no threat in Afghanistan, from 2010 to 2013, and also investigate two Royal Military Police investigations which did not bring charges or prosecutions.
Afghan families have accused UK special forces of a “campaign of murder” against civilians, while senior figures at the Ministry of Defence “sought to prevent adequate investigation”.
The inquiry continues.