Controversy over compensation for Gerry Adams does nothing to deliver truth and justice to Troubles victims

Each episode of the Netflix adaptation of Patrick Radden Keefe’s book Say Nothing, which addresses the IRA’s tactic of disappearing alleged informers, ends with a disclaimer: “Gerry Adams has always denied being a member of the IRA or participating in any IRA violence”. The series suggests Adams’s role was as an IRA commander in Belfast at the time.

A conviction for IRA membership is punishable by up to 14 years in prison under UK law. While Adams would only serve two years under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement if he were to admit to IRA membership and be successfully prosecuted, he is 76 years old. I know what I would advise if I were his lawyer.

The series has become popular just as rightwing thinktank Policy Exchange produced a report on the fact that Adams and up to 400 others could be due compensation from the British government for their detention during the Troubles. This followed a Supreme Court decision that their internment without trial in the 1970s was legally flawed.

Policy Exchange was a cheerleader for the controversial Northern Ireland Troubles and Reconciliation Act, introduced by the government of Boris Johnson in 2023. That legislation, which was opposed by almost everyone in Northern Ireland, permitted the granting of an amnesty to all state and non-state actors accused of committing crimes during the Troubles.

Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.

Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.

It also closed down all conflict-related inquests, civil actions, police and police ombudsman investigations. These were replaced with the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR) – a body whose members were all appointed by the then Conservative government. The ICRIR was given sole responsibility for implementing the amnesty and conducting “reviews” instead of full investigations.

The Johnson government also unilaterally tore up a previous agreement with the Irish government and four of the five local political parties – the Stormont House agreement (SHA).

Once the courts found his internment to be unlawful, Adams and the others were inevitably entitled to compensation. During the course of the Northern Ireland Troubles and Reconciliation Act’s passage, an unrelated amendment was introduced to prevent that compensation. This provision has also been found to be unlawful by the courts and the entitlement to compensation has been reconfirmed.

As the former shadow Northern Ireland secretary (and current science minister) Peter Kyle once noted, those making a lot of noise about Adams getting compensation for unlawful detention seemed happy enough to vote for a law that would give him an amnesty if he were ever convicted.

Labour’s approach to legacy

The Labour government has ostensibly committed to repealing and replacing the legacy act. Following the court decisions which found it to be unlawful, the government abandoned the amnesty, and committed to reintroducing civil actions and some inquests. The government does, however, appear determined to keep the ICRIR and to amend its powers rather than get rid of it. This is despite a clear lack of trust among victims and survivors, many of whom appear reluctant to engage.

Under the SHA, before it was unilaterally abandoned by the Tories, the UK and Irish governments also signed a treaty to establish a cross-border mechanism to facilitate information recovery from armed groups. Victims seeking information about lost family members, for example, could approach a bespoke commission, which would seek information through interlocutors, try to verify its authenticity and then provide a report to the family. Nothing in this process could be used in court.

This wasn’t an amnesty, since a separate investigative process was also in place (hermetically sealed from the information recovery process). The investigation could lead to a prosecution.

Victims could therefore, in effect, choose between information recovery from armed groups or an independent investigation and possible prosecution if sufficient evidence existed. Most victims are, of coursem aware that conflict-related prosecutions will be very rare given the passage of time. But leaving the option open was considered crucial by all those involved in the Stormont House negotiations.

The Labour government is yet to recommit to this arrangement, although the Irish government continues to insist that families need to have access to both investigations and information recovery.

I have conducted international research for the United Nations on the challenges of getting armed groups to address past harms. However, there is some reason for optimism regarding Northern Ireland that it may be possible to get information from at least some of the groups previously involved in violence.

The commission established by the British and Irish governments in 1999 to get information from republicans through interlocutors on the disappeared has been a success. This information has been used to recover the remains of those disappeared by republicans during the conflict – the focus of much of the Say Nothing Netflix series.

Working ever since then through interlocutors to the IRA (and one other group, the Irish National Liberation Army), the commission has managed to recover the remains of 13 of 17 bodies, so the families involved can have a proper funeral.

As the lead investigation from that commission (a retired Manchester police superintendent) said at a recent seminar, recovering those bodies would not have been possible without the active participation of the republican movement.

Similarly, one of the loyalist groups (the Ulster Volunteer Force) has engaged in a lengthy process of information recovery with the son of John Crawford, whom they murdered in 1974. Their acknowledgement of responsibility and passing on of information requested by John Crawford’s son Paul has been described by Paul as bringing “the greatest degree of resolution possible”.

While Adams’s claims to compensation may be of interest, it won’t bring much closure to victims. Instead, in addition to its root and branch reform of the ICRIR, the UK government needs to get on the same page as the Irish and return to its previous commitment to help get information from armed groups.

Of course, such information will only be forthcoming if groups cooperate, but the indications are that at least some of them are up for it. Republican and loyalist leaders have suggested as much if the required legislation is fit for purpose. And we all have a responsibility to try, for the sake of victims and survivors. They have waited long enough for information that can only be provided by the armed groups involved.

Professor Kieran McEvoy has received funding for a range of sources on transitional justice related topics including the ESRC, AHRC and ERC. His work on getting armed groups to address past harms is funded by the Leverhulme Trust which awarded him a three year Leverhulme Major Research Fellowship to research this topic in 2024. He is a long-standing human rights and peace activist and he has served on the board of the Committee on the Administration of Justice (Northern Ireland's primary human rights NGO) and Community Restorative Justice Ireland for over three decades. His work with the latter organisation grew from direct engagement with the republican movement trying to find lawful and non-violent alternatives to IRA punishment violence and a means to build bridges between previously estranged republican communities and the Police Service of Northern Ireland. He is also a board member of the London based human rights NGO, Rights and Security International.