The Ministry of Defence (MoD) is facing mounting criticism over its increasing lack of transparency, with new figures obtained by the charity Action on Armed Violence (AOAV) revealing that access to information is at its lowest level in five years.
In 2023, the MoD granted full access to just 42% of Freedom of Information (FOI) requests, the lowest rate since records began. Exemptions related to national security, defence, and commercial interests were cited in 30% of refusals, raising concerns that these clauses are being used to shield the department from scrutiny rather than for legitimate security reasons.
The use of the national security exemption alone has increased to 10.5% of total FOI rejections, a rise from 8.1% in 2020. It is possible more sensitive topics were requested in 2023, than other years, therefore more exemptions were applied, but the UK remains one of the few democracies without a clear statutory definition of ‘national security’.
This allows the MoD to broadly interpret the term to block information requests. By contrast, the United States and Canada have clearer legal frameworks governing what can be classified as a national security concern, reducing the potential for misuse.
RELATED
Transparency versus secrecy
Data seen by AOAV and shared with Declassified also reveals that three-quarters of public inquiries involving the MoD over the past five years have been held partially or entirely in private. This includes high-profile cases such as the Independent Inquiry Relating to Afghanistan, where families of Afghan civilians allegedly killed by UK special forces have been excluded from key evidence sessions.
The MoD argued that public access would compromise national security, but critics claim the secrecy undermines accountability. Human rights lawyer Hilary Meredith-Beckham told Declassified: “Public scrutiny forces accountability, and accountability saves lives. The MoD’s approach suggests a deliberate attempt to shield itself from oversight.”
In addition to restricting public inquiries, the MoD has repeatedly failed to meet FOI deadlines and has been criticised for mishandling records. Between 2019 and 2023, 57% of FOI requests that were fully rejected cited cost as the reason, with the MoD arguing that retrieving the requested data would exceed the £600 processing limit.
Journalists and researchers have questioned whether these refusals reflect genuine resource constraints or an institutional reluctance to provide access to potentially damaging information.
‘Bureaucratic stonewalling’
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has upheld 92% of complaints against the MoD’s FOI rejections since records began. However, despite these rulings, the MoD has rarely been forced to release additional information.
In 2023, the ICO upheld 17 of 19 complaints against the MoD, yet nearly all remained unresolved, highlighting the ICO’s lack of enforcement power.
Charlie Whelton of civil liberties group Liberty told Declassified: “without meaningful consequences for failing to disclose information, the FOI process becomes little more than an exercise in bureaucratic stonewalling.”
There is also evidence that the MoD has provided misleading responses to FOI requests. One case involved British Army operations in Kenya, where the MoD initially denied holding records related to allegations of misconduct in the east African former colony. Following external pressure, it was later revealed that internal communications on the issue did exist.
Similarly, records on the alleged involvement of UK Special Forces in Afghanistan were initially withheld, with the MoD later admitting to possessing relevant files but refusing to disclose them. The lack of transparency is compounded by the MoD’s fragmented and outdated record-keeping systems.
Requests for seemingly straightforward information, such as a list of UK army visits to Special Educational Needs (SEN) schools, were rejected because compiling the data would allegedly take more than 40 working days.
The decentralised nature of the MoD’s data systems has led to repeated failures in fulfilling FOI requests, with internal records frequently described as incomplete or inaccessible – a failure the MoD claims it is trying to address.
RELATED
‘Public’ inquiries
The secrecy surrounding public inquiries has also drawn legal challenges. The terms of reference for the Omagh Bombing Inquiry explicitly state that some evidence sessions will be held in private, a decision that has been met with opposition from victims’ families.
In the Dawn Sturgess Inquiry, which examined the Novichok poisonings in Salisbury, concerns were raised that withholding key evidence could prevent a full understanding of the state’s response to the attack.
In May 2023, the MoD submitted a formal request to the Independent Inquiry Relating to Afghanistan, seeking to restrict access to evidence, with military personnel names redacted and witness testimonies heard in closed sessions. Legal experts have warned that the MoD’s growing reliance on secrecy could have serious implications for democracy and accountability.
Lawyers Leigh Day have formally challenged the decision to conduct Afghanistan-related inquiry hearings in private, arguing that it denies Afghan families their right to justice. The lawyers proposed a system where hearings could take place with redactions and time delays rather than complete exclusion. This proposal was rejected, with the inquiry chair citing concerns about potential security risks and delays in processing sensitive material.
Culture of secrecy
The MoD’s failures in transparency extend beyond FOI refusals and inquiries. There is evidence that critical information about war crimes investigations has been withheld from military police. In one case, it was revealed that allegations of extrajudicial killings by UK Special Forces in Afghanistan were locked away in a safe by senior officers rather than being shared with investigators. A whistleblower eventually exposed the documents, prompting a broader inquiry.
The MoD has also struggled to meet disclosure deadlines for its own reports, and delayed publishing its latest annual figures on military equipment due to a “data quality review.” Critics argue that these delays reflect a broader unwillingness to provide public access to military affairs.
Amid mounting criticism, there are calls for the MoD to overhaul its transparency policies. Recommendations include introducing a legal definition of national security to prevent its misuse in FOI exemptions, increasing the ICO’s enforcement powers, and establishing an independent inspector general to oversee military accountability.
Without meaningful reforms, the MoD risks further eroding trust in the UK’s armed forces and undermining the public’s right to scrutinise government actions.
In reply to the investigation, the MoD told Declassified: “These figures are from the previous government. The government is committed to being open and transparent and takes its obligations under the Freedom of Information Act very seriously.
“All requests are handled in accordance with policy and on a case-by-case basis and where sensitive information is identified as in scope of a request, the appropriate exemptions are applied.”
But the question remains whether the government will act or allow the culture of secrecy to continue unchallenged.
