Reform UK has announced a new policy to ‘defend our troops’. In reality, they want to play on the fears of elderly veterans, while attacking the rule of law. Using a tried-and-tested Tory trope, the far-right party said it will prevent past and future prosecutions of armed forces personnel if elected.
Reform’s head of policy Zia Yusuf posted the plans on X on 26 January. He said a Reform government would grant immunity to all current and former personnel, create a bar on prosecutions and pardon veterans. Yusuf also promised to leave the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and the International Criminal Court (ICC):
Today, launching Veterans for Reform, @Nigel_Farage announces that a Reform government will:
grant immunity from prosecution for all our armed forces for actions during combat operations, they may only be prosecuted if the Defence Secretary expressly authorises it.
use a…
— Zia Yusuf (@ZiaYusufUK) January 26, 2026
An hour later he posted again to expand on the policy. In a short video he specified that veterans were under attack by “foreign courts” and a “treacherous political class”. He said elderly veterans were being hounded while Irish Republican Army (IRA) terrorists “walk free”:
Important policy announcement:
Reform will end the persecution of our brave warriors.
British soldiers past, present and future: Reform UK has your back.
pic.twitter.com/xSon5VO4Bb
— Zia Yusuf (@ZiaYusufUK) January 26, 2026
He also claimed UK PM Keir Starmer had just stripped away the last protections for veterans, which meant the “floodgates” would open on “hundreds of vexatious cases”. A Nigel Farage-led government would “end the persecution of our soldiers”, Yusuf said.
But there’s a problem with the scenario Yusuf presented to his followers: it’s almost completely made up.
Not to mention Reform’s dire need for an audio engineer — this video was painful to listen to.
The reality of legacy allegations
The narrative of a witch-hunt against British troops is well-established. It’s been a key part of British culture wars discourse for years. This right-wing fantasy holds that lefty lawyers and nefarious foreigners pursue made-up claims of abuse and murder against brave British soldiers. It’s often framed as a ‘witch hunt’.
The problem is, to take just the example of Ireland, no such witch hunt exists. As the Centre for Military Justice (CMJ) said in July 2025:
There have been just six prosecutions brought against veterans since the Good Friday Agreement, more than 25 years ago. There has been just ONE conviction. That is not a witch-hunt.
Over 300,000 British troops served in the so-called Troubles. By no serious measure can six prosecutions and a single conviction be seen as a witch-hunt.
CMJ director Emma Norton added:
Protesters and political actors must stop stoking the fears of the veteran community. It is irresponsible to encourage veterans to live in perpetual fear of getting a knock at the door and activists should not be pouring fuel on the fire of elderly men’s fears.
But former senior military veterans have intervened too…
The generals are wrong
Reform has also promised to leave the ECHR. In 2025 a group of ex-generals also called for the UK to abandon the court. Here’s what former top military lawyer Nicholas Mercer said in response:
These retired senior officers believe that one of the biggest threats to the operational effectiveness of our armed forces is what they refer to as “lawfare”. On the contrary, one of the biggest risks is from the widespread myths and misunderstandings about the rule of law and human rights that are being put about by those who should know better and who are stoking the fears of elderly veterans.
And Mercer reiterated what CMJ had said about the tiny number of prosecutions and convictions of UK troops in relation to Ireland:
There has been just one conviction of a veteran since the Good Friday Agreement – and he got a suspended sentence for manslaughter.
But here is another important angle. Why have there been so few convictions? As Mercer points out, it is because the army itself worked to prevent accountability:
The tiny number of prosecutions of veterans that have resulted in an acquittal were founded upon serious evidence to suggest that a crime had been committed. The reason they came so late in the day was because there had been no investigation or accountability at the time, something some senior soldiers and others colluded in.
But there’s more. The whole anti-ECHR narrative is also full of flaws.
Reform and the ECHR misinformation
In a separate intervention on the CMJ website on 18 November 2025, Mercer “took issue” with:
the misinformation that is being put around about the ECHR’s impact on the UK’s ability to conduct overseas operations.
Mercer said:
My experience in Iraq 2003 was that the ECHR was a force for good. First of all, the ECHR does not apply on the battlefield and so the commander’s discretion was not fettered in any way, as alleged. Secondly, the ECHR only applied to the treatment of prisoners and where the army was acting as the de facto public authority during occupation.
It is absolutely right that Human Rights should apply in those situations so that all care is taken to avoid mistreatment of those detained and unnecessary loss of life.
In short, the ECHR has no effect on the battlefield, because it does not apply there. It does apply to the treatment of prisoners of war, but why would that be a problem? What would British generals or, for that matter, a Reform government wish do with prisoners of war that the ECHR could prevent? Firing squads?
Reform UK are playing on the fears of elderly veterans to get elected. The party is pushing out misinformation and disinformation about historical allegations, about the ECHR and about fabricated ‘witch hunts’. But their goal isn’t defending anyone. Their goal is to get into power — and they’ll lie through their teeth to arrive there.
Featured image via the Canary
By Joe Glenton
From Canary via This RSS Feed.