Of the countless people who provided intelligence to help the British state fight terrorism during the Troubles in Northern Ireland (1968-98), Agent Stakeknife was the best known. He had a reputation for having been involved in the most violent offences as a member of the IRA while simultaneously providing the British Army with intelligence.
While the identities of many of the informers who provided intelligence of this kind remain unknown, agent Stakeknife’s alleged identity as a man called Freddie Scappaticci was first made public in 2003.
The final report of a lengthy independent investigation into this case is now calling for the UK government to confirm Stakeknife’s identity. Operation Kenova, set up by the Police Service of Northern Ireland, found that Stakeknife was named as a suspect in dozens of crimes, including murders.
Although he denied it up until his death in 2023, Scappaticci is widely believed to have provided intelligence to the British Army from the late 1970s into the 1990s. Throughout this time he was also an active member of the IRA, something his handlers in the British Army – the people he reported to – were well aware of.
Agent Stakeknife was able to provide intelligence on the IRA’s members and activities across Northern Ireland. He was privy to a huge amount of sensitive information because he was part of – and may even have led – the IRA’s “nutting squad”. This unit’s aim was to find suspected informers within the IRA and punish or even kill them. Yet he himself was an informer.
The nutting squad has been described as being “like an electrical junction box through which every wire must flow”. It gave Stakeknife access to people and information across the IRA, making him particularly useful to the British Army.
But in this role, he was suspected of being involved in multiple counts of conspiracy to murder, conspiracy to unlawfully imprison and other potential charges in connection with the abduction, interrogation, torture and murder of people suspected, wrongly or rightly, of being informants.
Arguments for and against naming informers
Without the final piece of information on Stakeknife’s identity, the families of those who died feel they are not getting the whole truth.
Since Scappaticci’s death, there has been no attempt to refute claims he was Agent Stakeknife. While alive, a peer named him in the House of Lords as Stakeknife – a claim that was quickly retracted.
Scappaticci was never charged or convicted with any Troubles-related offences and now never will. Civil action is likely to continue, however. The High Court’s highly unusual ruling that Scappaticci’s will should be sealed rather than made public is likely to be challenged.
The Kenova investigators argued strongly that agent Stakeknife’s identity should be revealed. While they don’t confirm their belief that Stakeknife is Scappaticci, they do list the extensive list of reasons that have left many others thinking he was. Naming Stakeknife, they argue, is essential for victims and families, public discussion and debate, media freedom, open justice and public confidence in state authorities and the criminal justice system.
The British government has long maintained a policy regarding informers known as “neither confirm nor deny”. This protects informers’ lives as well as ensuring the government can continue to access intelligence that could save other lives.
Confirming that a particular individual is, or has been, an informer puts that person at risk of being killed by their associates to deter potential future informers and as a punishment. While Scappaticci is dead, others are still alive.
Naming informers also demonstrates to anyone considering becoming an informer that they may not be protected by whichever state organisation they come to work for, whether that be the police, the army or intelligence agencies such as MI5. This therefore reduces their chances of coming forward to provide intelligence.
On the other hand, to deny that Scappaticci or anyone else was an informer would create a situation where if someone else was later alleged to be an informer, if the government did not issue a denial for them, they would be assumed to be an informer. So while there is no harm to Scappaticci in either scenario, others could be put at risk.
Although this nine-year investigation has delivered some new nuggets of information about Agent Stakeknife, it is no surprise that there is disappointment from some quarters that the government still refuses to name Agent Stakeknife. This situation demonstrates the sometimes competing needs of truth, justice, accountability and intelligence work.
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.
Samantha Newbery does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
