Mr Mercer said in his written statement: “I understood this to mean that he had been asked to carry an extra weapon (one that could not be linked to Nato forces) to be dropped on the body of a person to make it appear as though they had been a legitimate target as a combatant. The request made him uncomfortable and he refused.”
But asked during oral evidence if he was able to provide the names of his “multiple sources” to the inquiry, Mr Mercer said: “Not at this stage, no.”
When asked why not by Oliver Glasgow KC, counsel to the inquiry, Mr Mercer replied: “This has been a prolonged saga for me over many years, and my faith in the system to interrogate these issues is not where it needs to be for that to happen.”
Mr Mercer said his sources were “not direct-hand witnesses”, adding: “They were not there.” He told the inquiry that he needed to maintain his “integrity” and that “the simple reality is at this stage that I’m not prepared to burn them”.
He said the inquiry was “already speaking to people” with “far closer knowledge” of what had taken place and that he was also fearful “of the repercussions that may fall on them [his sources]”.
Mr Mercer, who conducted a parliamentary investigation into the treatment of troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, told the inquiry that there was a “context around how investigators have destroyed people’s lives”, adding: “So when all is said and done and rank and privilege is stripped away, you know, you have your friends and your family and your own integrity, and that’s it, and I’m going to keep mine.”
‘Disappointing and surprising’
At the end of the second day of testimony, Lord Justice Haddon-Cave warned Mr Mercer of the consequences of refusing to co-operate, telling the minister: “The plain fact of the matter is that you have, at least for the moment, refused to answer legitimate questions by leading counsel at a public inquiry, and in particular, what are their names, what are the names of the people who have spoken to you about these matters.
“And I’m bound to say this is, frankly, very disappointing and surprising, particularly for someone in your position, and, I am bound to say, completely unacceptable. It gives rise to potentially serious legal consequences which may need to be put in train.”
Lord Justice Hadden-Cave added: “I have, I’m afraid, very significant powers under the Inquiries Act 2005, which I would prefer not to have to use. But you can be assured, Mr Mercer, that I will if necessary. My patience is not inexhaustible because I have a public inquiry to run and pursue as quickly as possible, in the public interest, and in the interest of all those who have had allegations made against them, or who have a dark cloud sitting over them, their families and their careers.”
The judge warned Mr Mercer: “You need to decide which side you are really on,” which was either to get “to the truth of these allegations quickly, for everyone’s sake; or being part of what is, in effect, an omertà, a wall of silence, and this wall of silence is obstructing the inquiry and access to the truth”.
He said Mr Mercer was staying silent out of what he called “a misguided understanding of the term integrity, and inappropriate sense of loyalty”.
Mr Mercer declined to comment when approached by The Telegraph this week.
Offer of closed hearing
It is unclear if the minister and the inquiry can reach a compromise. Lord Justice Haddon-Cave has told the minister he can offer him a closed hearing in which he could detail the names behind closed doors. He also reassured Mr Mercer that evidence can be taken in secret.
A friend of Mr Mercer said: “These sources are not people who are in any way suspects. They are vulnerable soldiers and veterans who for their own legitimate reasons didn’t want to engage with the inquiry, but Johnny was able to tell their story for them because they trusted him.
“This is not about him protecting wrongdoers. But Johnny has spent his entire political career protecting junior ranks, and he won’t change that.
“Mercer is the most senior member of the Government who has consistently said something stinks here and has called it out. He has highlighted the failure of the MoD to investigate this when it was first raised.
“He is uniquely a minister who also has special forces experience and that’s why he recognised this was not being investigated properly in the first place
“He is not covering up any wrongdoing. He is protecting second-hand witnesses who don’t want to engage with the inquiry because they are vulnerable. Johnny gave these soldiers his word they would not be identified. The inquiry should have used Johnny as a person who the military community trusts. Instead they’ve made it less likely for people to tell anyone anything.”
William Turner is a seasoned U.K. correspondent with a deep understanding of domestic affairs. With a passion for British politics and culture, he provides insightful analysis and comprehensive coverage of events within the United Kingdom.
