Serving the public interest - from Belfast to Pakistan

| | | | | | | |

Damian O'Loan (Paris): Allegations of British collusion with torture by Pakistani security services led to calls for an Intelligence and Security Committee investigation on Tuesday. A week earlier the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee published a report into historical enquiries. These events are linked.

Lat year, the British government accepted the findings of a report confirming police collusion with a loyalist paramilitary group involved in murders and other grave offences.The NIAC report may be a step towards allowing further historical inquiries to be suppressed. Why would we not want to learn from our history?

It focuses on three perceived problems with historical inquiries. The first is the cost, the second is present-day security and confidence and the third the right to life of informants.

The first is a significant issue. Hundreds of millions of pounds have been spent on inquiries and other activities. This figure is due, in part, to the failure of the British government to consistently cooperate. The information is, if not somehow unavailable, at the relevant parties' disposal – when not furnished, that costs the public. Without wishing to enter into moral arguments as to why knowledge about murder must be shared with investigations, we may note the 1948 Universal Declaration and relevant ECHR legislation

The relationship between public security and justice has recently been raised regarding Sudan. The Northern Ireland situation is considerably less fragile and dwarfed in terms of human loss. The idea that long-term security is increased by concealment of past crimes has yet to be justified. That many already believe the worst is too often unacknowledged. No stable society can be built on foundations of complicity in the concealment of shameful history. The failure to recognise this is insulting to the maturity of Northern Ireland's electorate, often exceeding that of its politicians.

The dissident republican threat gained high-profile coverage before the report's publication. No doubt the threat exists. It may appear reasonable that any government would wish to capitalise upon any threat to further its own interests. I note too Martin McGuinness' condemnation. Murderous dissidents may be gaining support from a perception that Sinn Féin are too close to the British to represent the beliefs of republicans.

Certainly the clock is ticking on vital information that could provide justice for hurting mothers, fathers and children. The time for truth that suits those in power may be too late for those in mourning.

The right to life of informants is sacrosanct. It must not be devalued by use as a fig-leaf for shame. Legislation is in place to ensure that all historical enquiries respect this right – no actions have been brought in this respect, though some have in regard to failure to complete historical enquiries. Indeed legislation is key to the future of justice in Northern Ireland and beyond. If the legislative basis for a future centralised historical investigations unit does not include powers of arrest, and seizure of intelligence, including from MI5, confidence will be lost and security risked across the UK.

Northern Ireland has had enough of conflict, and progress is jeopardised by skeletons in closets. The short-term interests of a few cannot be placed ahead of the future of a people. This weeks Kafkesque allegations of torture being “outsourced” may raise questions on the policy on collusion. No society's interests are served by the use of torture on anyone. Profound investigations are required to ensure the public interest is served in all cases and places.

| | | | | | | |