Untitled Document
An unarmed Iraqi shot dead in one of the most controversial incidents
of the Iraq war is suspected to have been the victim of an execution by British
soldiers angry at the death of their sergeant.
An army investigation into the case, potentially one of the most damaging
allegations against British troops to emerge from the war, has allegedly repeatedly
been stalled by senior officers, including one of the army’s most respected
generals.
But a Metropolitan police investigation is understood to have confirmed the
initial suspicions of army investigators that, despite being disabled by machinegun
fire, the Iraqi was shot at point-blank range.
Zahir Zabti Zaher was killed in the same incident in which Sergeant Steven
Roberts died near al-Zubayr, southwest of Basra, on March 24, 2003, three days
into the war. The incident became notorious when it emerged that equipment shortages
had left Roberts without any body armour.
The Crown Prosecution Service is still considering whether to take the case
to court, with two soldiers facing possible murder charges and one a charge
of manslaughter.
The new allegations of an “execution” explain an angry exchange
of letters in November 2004 between Geoff Hoon, the former defence secretary,
and Lord Goldsmith, the attorney-general, over alleged attempts by senior officers
to block an investigation.
Goldsmith was so concerned over the implications of the case that he took it
out of the hands of the military and gave it to the Met and the civilian courts
system.
Goldsmith wanted Major-General Peter Wall and other senior officers to be interviewed
by the Met over what he said was evidence of “a concerted attempt by the
chain of command to influence and prevent an investigation into this matter”.
Goldsmith was “extremely angry” when Hoon refused to allow Wall
to be interviewed by police, one defence source said last week. More than a
year later he has still not been interviewed.
The role of officers in the case goes to the heart of the attorney-general’s
concerns over the lack of independence of the military police, who remain part
of the army command structure and can pursue investigations only with the agreement
of military commanders.
Although officers and soldiers work very closely together during military operations,
officers have been charged in only one of the six investigations into alleged
breaches of the Geneva conventions by British troops in Iraq.
That was in the case of Baha Musa, an Iraqi hotel worker who died in the custody
of the Queen’s Lancashire Regiment. After Goldsmith’s intervention
Colonel Jorge Mendonca, the battalion’s then commanding officer, and Major
Michael Peebles, an Intelligence Corps interrogator, were charged with neglect.
The army Special Investigations Branch (SIB) inquiry into the killings of Roberts
and Zaher was repeatedly blocked by senior officers from the very start, defence
sources close to the original investigation alleged. A three-man team from 61
Section SIB sent to al-Zubayr found large numbers of spent British cartridge
cases but no evidence that any Iraqis had fired any weapons. They spoke to soldiers
and Iraqi witnesses to piece together what happened.
Roberts and his men from 2nd Royal Tank Regiment were in three Challenger 2
tanks manning a checkpoint just outside the the small town of al-Zubayr. They
had been on the road for four days with little sleep. There was apprehension
about the next phase of the battle and the possibility of paramilitary Saddam
Fedayeen units operating in civilian clothes.
Roberts and his men were approached by a group of Iraqi civilians apparently
angry at being prevented from going into the town. Zaher came up to the checkpoint
and appeared agitated.
Roberts dismounted from his tank to try to calm him down. But Zaher threw a
stone at Roberts and then another. At some point — Iraqi eyewitnesses
claimed on orders from Roberts — a soldier on one of the tanks opened
fire on Zaher with its 7.62 coaxial machinegun, inadvertently shooting Roberts
as well.
The initial evidence suggested that, while Roberts died in the burst of machinegun
fire, Zaher did not, even though his torso was riddled with bullets and one
arm was virtually severed from his body.
“There were a number of suspicious markers,” one source said. But
the SIB team was ordered by senior commanders to release Zaher’s body
to his family, interview the soldiers as witnesses rather than as suspects,
and treat the shooting of Roberts as “a tragic death in war”.
As the news of the death of Roberts emerged, attention focused on the way in
which he had been ordered to hand back the ceramic plates in his body armour.
In an audio diary recorded for his wife in the days before he died, Roberts
had complained that they were going to war without the equipment they needed
and that it was “disgraceful” that they had “absolutely nothing”.
His wife Samantha lambasted Hoon.
The death of Zaher had disappeared from view. But when the warrant officer
in charge of the investigation, WO2 Phil Jackson, returned to Germany, he reported
back to his immediate boss, Lieutenant-Colonel Graham Taylor, the commanding
officer of SIB (Germany).
Taylor pulled strings to have the case reopened in Iraq, where SIB officers
recovered Zaher’s body and an examination found that it was not the machinegun
bullets that had killed him. It was two pistol shots to his head as he lay helpless
on the ground.
“That evidence was very clear,” a source close to the investigation
said. “He died from two pistol shots to the head. There were clear grounds
to suspect an execution, ie murder. You don’t do that to a prisoner.”
Army sources have since claimed that Zaher had “Rasputin-like”
strength and that Roberts fired his pistol at the Iraqi. But the source said
this could not explain the head shots that would have killed Zaher instantly,
meaning he would not have been hit by the machinegun fire at chest height.
Taylor went to Wall, who was general officer commanding 1 (UK) Armoured Division,
and told him the decision not to investigate initially was flawed and the case
now had to be reinvestigated properly.
Wall told Taylor there was no need to investigate. But Taylor was determined
that the matter should be investigated and kept going back to Wall to explain
why. Eventually, in September 2003, Wall wrote to the army’s most senior
legal adviser, known as brigadier advisory, and asked him if SIB officers under
his command could order an investigation against his express wishes. Sources
say he was told not to block it any longer.
Goldsmith told Hoon that despite “clear advice”, there was correspondence
showing senior officers still “intervening to prevent investigations”
by the SIB for a further five months.
Wall says in a statement he remains confident that he “acted in accordance
with the interests of justice and appropriate care” for the soldiers under
his command.
The Ministry of Defence declined to comment.