Johnny Mercer defies order to disclose names of whistleblowers

Veterans’ Minister Johnny Mercer is facing a potential prison sentence after refusing to hand over the names of individuals who confided in him about alleged special forces murders in Afghanistan. The chairman of the Afghanistan Inquiry, Sir Charles Haddon-Cave, gave Mercer until April 5 to provide a witness statement containing the names, or face consequences for his failure to comply. Mercer had previously declined to provide the names of multiple officers who informed him about the allegations during his time as a backbench MP, citing concerns for their integrity.

In response to the deadline set by the Afghan Inquiry, Mercer announced his intention to challenge the order under section 21(4) of the Inquiries Act 2005. He expressed his awareness of the impending deadline on social media, stating that he would be seeking to have the Section 21 notice set aside. Mercer emphasized that he would not be providing further comments on the matter at this time. His decision to withhold the names of the whistleblowers is rooted in his belief that maintaining his integrity and protecting the individuals who confided in him are paramount.

The inquiry has indicated that Mercer was served with a Section 21 notice on March 13, compelling him to disclose the names of the individuals who shared information about the alleged special forces murders. The chairman of the inquiry stressed that the names would be treated confidentially, but failure to comply without a valid reason could result in criminal charges, including the possibility of imprisonment and fines. Mercer’s refusal to provide the names has been deemed “disappointing… surprising… and completely unacceptable” by the chairman, who emphasized the importance of cooperating with the public inquiry.

During Mercer’s testimony to the inquiry last month, he faced criticism for his unwillingness to answer questions related to the allegations of murder and a cover-up in Afghanistan. The chairman expressed his disappointment in Mercer’s refusal to provide information pertinent to the investigation, highlighting the significance of transparency and accountability in such matters. Mercer’s insistence on protecting the identities of those who shared sensitive information reflects his commitment to upholding ethical standards and honoring the trust placed in him by the whistleblowers.

As the deadline imposed by the Afghan Inquiry approaches, Mercer’s decision to challenge the order and seek resolution under the Inquiries Act 2005 underscores the complexity and gravity of the situation. The balancing act between moral obligations, legal requirements, and personal integrity presents a challenge for Mercer, who must navigate the repercussions of his actions in the context of a high-stakes inquiry. The outcome of Mercer’s challenge and the implications for the ongoing investigation into the alleged special forces murders in Afghanistan remain uncertain as the deadline nears and the standoff between the minister and the inquiry continues.