Introduction

With colleagues at the Mitchell Institute, Professor Kieran McEvoy organised this half day event on 9 October 2024 as part of his ongoing Leverhulme Major Research Fellowship on how armed groups should address past harms.

As Mitchell Institute Director Prof. Richard English (who chaired the event) explained, the seminar was focused on two inter-related issues: (a) the mechanisms and processes that are required to facilitate truth recovery and acknowledgement by armed groups; and (b) how to finally get the remaining armed groups in Northern Ireland to end violence, intimidation or criminality.

 

Armed Groups ‘Stepping Up’

Professor McEvoy spoke on the topic of “Armed Groups ‘Stepping Up’ to Address Past Harms”.  Drawing on his previous academic and practical experience, he argued that addressing the past requires a combination of prosecutions (albeit with jail time reduced to zero), investigations and information recovery through interlocutors to armed groups.  For the latter to work properly, he also contended that such information recovery necessitates sensitive engagement with victims and information verification, legal protections for interlocutors and a process that is entirely separate and independent from investigations.  In addition, he stressed, it will also demand political will and capacity from the relevant groups and the two governments, as well as broader process of acknowledgement by all of the actors to the conflict.

 

Recovering the Disappeared Through Interlocutors

Honorary QUB Professor Geoff Knupfer (a former detective chief superintendent and until his recent retirement, lead investigator with the Independent Commission for the Location of Victims’ Remains (ICLVR) reflected on his experiences working for the ICLVR, the body established by the UK and Irish governments to help recover the remains of those disappeared during the conflict.  To date the remains of 13 of the 17 disappeared during the conflict have been recovered Geoff reflected on a range of issues including managing ‘digs’ and developing and maintaining relations with both victims and interlocutors to republican armed groups.  Noting the success of the Commission, Geoff paid tribute to the fortitude and forbearance of the families of their disappeared through what was a long and harrowing process.  He argued that the success of the Commission was due in part to the way in which the legislation was drafted which he described as ‘absolutely inspired’, in particular the form of limited immunity which facilitated engagement with the Republican Movement.  Noting that the engagement of republicans came about as a result of political pressure and not just humanitarian impulses, and that they undoubtedly sought to control the process at different junctures, he charted how relations were developed and improved over the years after a slow start.  He continued:

"Following my appointment in 2005, the Republican Movement created a channel or point of contact through which all the then declared cases could be pursued.  Joint site visits were made and, where possible, meetings were set up with individuals who had knowledge of various cases.  This process worked well, and, without doubt, the Commission received strong support from the Movement.  As the years rolled by, interlocutors and participants in these events become more comfortable with the fact that what was said to the Commission stayed within the Commission (no arrests; no convictions; admissibility of ‘evidence’)… This process simply couldn’t have happened without the support and active participation of the Republican Movement and its members.  I pay particular tribute to our intermediaries and interlocutors and also to those former participants who have had the courage and conviction to come forward over the years."   

ETA Decommissioning, Interlocutors and the Law

Another QUB Honorary Professor, Chris Maccabe also spoke about his own direct experience of being an interlocutor in peacemaking.  Chris was a very senior UK civil servant, a former director of prison regimes in Northern Ireland and former head of NIO political affairs.  He was also a member of the International Verification Commission that oversaw the process of decommissioning by the Basque separatist group ETA.

The Basque peace process has been largely driven by local Basque political and civil society together with a range of senior international interlocutors (including Chris), often in the face of strong opposition from the then right-wing Spanish government in Madrid.  Chris recounted his experiences of the risks of peacemaking interlocutor work without legal protection – and the intersection between law and politics.  Leaving a Bilbao hotel elated having just secured the first act of decommissioning from ETA, he was handed a summons by two police officers requiring him to attend a Madrid court the following morning to explain ‘your actions in conspiring with the terrorist group known as ETA.’  Having met with the Basque president and Justice minister who confirmed that he had no choice but to appear, he and his Commission colleagues flew to Madrid.  He recalled:

"When we arrived at the impressive building there was a heavy police presence holding back the crowd.  It was all rather daunting… I have to confess I was a more than a little apprehensive as I waited for my turn to come.  Was I about to become a latter-day victim of the Spanish Inquisition?  I didn’t have to wait too long before I was shown into a grand courtroom, where a begowned man was sitting behind the bench along with a begowned woman and another begowned man.  The proceedings began with the State Prosecutor declaring that I was there that morning because, although I did not appear in the offending decommissioning video I had been engaging with terrorists, namely the terrorist group ETA, in other ways.  That was a very serious offence.  My response was immediate and emphatic.  "I have never engaged with anyone whom I have known to be, or believed to be, a member of the terrorist group ETA”. However, I have engaged with people whom I have known or believed to be associates of that terrorist group.  I believe that the opportunity to help to bring an end to terrorism in whatever form it takes is a prize beyond value to my surprise… The Presiding Judge said, “Thank you Senor Maccabe, that will be all, you are free to go”.

Armed Groups and Transition

Daniel Holder (Director of the Committee on the Administration of Justice), addressed two related issues, the ‘de-proscription’ of armed groups which are no longer involved in violence and the contested involvement of loyalist armed groups in racist intimidation and violence.  Daniel provided illustrations of some of the absurdities of the proscription system and how difficult it is for an organisation to come off the list – including the fact that Cumann na mBan – the republican women’s’ group created in 1914 remains proscribed organisation, despite its role being celebrated by President Higgins on the 100^th anniversary of its founding.  He also addressed the role of loyalist armed groups in housing intimidation and the lived experience of migrants and ethnic minorities subject to paramilitary intimidation.

Professor Monica McWilliams (Co-Founder of the Northern Ireland Women’s Coalition political party and Emeritus Professor at Ulster University), spoke in a personal capacity on the issue of armed group transition and not as a representative of Independent Reporting Commission of which she is a member.  She argued that while no-one is opposed to paramilitary transition, the debate remains on how best to achieve this.  She outlined what is required from an armed group to transition including the ending of recruitment and training, the removal of weapons, and the elimination of violence and criminality other illegal activity and the ending of coercive power and control over communities and a commitment to democracy.

 

The Viability of Information Recovery and the Role of the two Governments

A lively Q & A session followed the formal presentations from speakers on a range of issues including organisational capacity, political will and legal protections for interlocutors.  Amongst those who made interventions were Mr. Paul Crawford, whose father John was murdered by the UVF in 1975.  Paul had engaged in a lengthy process of truth recovery where he sought and received information about the death of his father through an interlocutor to the UVF.  Paul described the process as highly successful, delivering more than he expected from the armed group.  He argued forcibly that there needs to be a process to seek and receive information from armed groups about past harms – stating "No matter who the victim and the victim-maker, the answers to all your questions lie with the victim-maker.”

Sean Murray, a former IRA prisoner and Sinn Fein lead on legacy policy, also intervened from the floor.  Mr. Murray spoke about the experience of being involved in the negotiations of the Stormont House Agreement on legacy, including the proposed mechanism to facilitate information recovery from armed groups, the Independent Commission for Information Recovery (ICIR).  He described the decision by the UK government to abandon that Agreement including the ICIR as "a solo run without consultation with the Irish government or any of the political parties in Northern Ireland which had been met with almost universal opposition". He concluded:

The British government has argued in defending their recent approach that there is no alternative. Well, there is an alternative. That alternative has been outlined here today. Especially if you want to achieve information recovery. There is a precedent, and that precedent is the Independent Commission for the Location of Victims’ Remains. It took time for it to work but it did work well, as trust was built, as leadership was given, as political will was exercised. So, you can build a similar process in terms of the ICIR. During those negotiations the Sinn Fein delegation was asked will you get buy in for these mechanisms. We replied if the mechanisms are there with all of the legislative safeguards that Kieran was referencing republicans shall not be found wanting. That remains our position on this issue.  So there is an alternative….

Winston Irvine, a prominent loyalist community activist and the person who performed the interlocutor function in the Crawford case, also intervened from the floor.  He reminded those present that the 30^th anniversary of the loyalist ceasefire was looming, that we still have armed groups and that we are still trying to address the needs of victims and survivors and how we as a society build a reconciliation process.  He argued that "reconciliation needs to be the foundation stone around which legacy mechanisms are built." He also argued that, in addition to the responsibilities of the British government, then "the Irish government too need to set up parallel mechanisms.  So, if we are going to have investigative mechanisms in the UK, here in Northern Ireland, the same needs to be done in the Republic – that goes for truth recovery as well as investigations." Finally, drawing on his own experiences of being involved in working with Paul Crawford on that case, he argued that the unilateral policy adopted by the UK government would not work and would provide false hope to victims. He concluded:

"Without fundamental changes, such as the introduction of protections or safeguards for interlocutors, who is going to give the information? People in the community I come from just won’t come forward… There needs to be fundamental reform of these policies and I hope people are listening today."

Representatives from the Irish and UK government was also present.  A senior official from the Irish government intervened to note that its starting point remains Stormont House, as that was the last point of agreement.  He restated that the Irish government have consistently opposed the Legacy Act in its current form and indeed had taken the rare step of initiating an inter-state case against the UK at the European Court of Human Rights.  He restated their willingness to work with the British Government if adequate common ground can be found.  He also pointed out that in relation to information recovery, a treaty already exists between the British and Irish governments with regard to the ICIR and that the Tánaiste has recently stated that victims, survivors and families need both access to information, and avenues to justice.  He also said that the Irish government was well aware that it too had responsibilities in addressing the legacy of the conflict. No intervention was made on behalf of the UK government.

 

Conclusion

This was an important event which spoke to the viability of information recovery from armed groups if the right combination of political and organisational will is matched by an appropriate legal framework, distinct from legacy investigations. It also provided a timely reminder of the compelling need for all such groups to finally depart the political stage 30 years after the IRA and loyalist ceasefires.