The Northern Ireland Office (NIO) has admitted that it should have offered protection to murdered solicitor Rosemary Nelson, according to newly unsealed documents. Nelson, a prominent figure in Northern Ireland’s legal community, was killed in a loyalist car bomb attack outside her home in Lurgan, County Armagh, in March 1999. She had been the target of threats and intimidation due to her work with high-profile clients, including suspected republican terrorists and victims of loyalist violence.
Why Did Rosemary Nelson Become a Target?
Rosemary Nelson, aged 40 at the time of her death, rose to prominence by representing clients involved in controversial cases. She took on high-profile cases, including representing the family of a Catholic man murdered by a loyalist mob, and a nationalist residents’ group campaigning against Orange Order parades during the Drumcree standoff. Her legal work made her a target of loyalist paramilitaries, as well as security forces in Northern Ireland.
By the mid-1990s, Nelson had raised concerns over the harassment and intimidation she faced from security forces. She reported receiving death threats from loyalist groups and alleged that Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) officers had intimidated her during interviews with her clients. Her experience echoed that of Belfast solicitor Pat Finucane, who was shot dead by loyalists in 1989. Nelson also claimed that RUC officers had threatened her while interrogating her clients.
Why Did the NIO Fail to Offer Protection to Nelson?
Shortly before Nelson’s death, the NIO offered protection to two of her clients, Portadown councillors Breandán Mac Cionnaith and Joe Duffy. Both men were active in opposing Orange Order demands to march on the Garvaghy Road. However, the NIO decided against offering similar protection to Nelson. According to newly released documents, the NIO’s senior official, Joe Pilling, later admitted in a conversation with Irish diplomats that, “with the benefit of hindsight, the NIO ought perhaps to have actively sought her out on this.”
Pilling expressed regret over the decision, acknowledging that Nelson’s security could have been better handled. However, he also suggested that she may not have welcomed an offer of protection from the RUC. “I would have liked lighting to be installed that would have illuminated the entire front of the house and would also have detected any interference with her vehicle,” he said. Despite the regret, Pilling suspected Nelson might have resisted the suggestion of RUC security protection.
Was the Ulster Defence Association Responsible for the Attack on Nelson?
The RUC’s chief constable, Ronnie Flanagan, later commented on the bombing of Nelson, noting that the attack was likely carried out by members of the Ulster Defence Association (UDA), as it was “too sophisticated” for the Lurgan Red Hand commandos. “He believes that UDA dissidents who are unhappy with the ceasefire may either have defected to the Red Hand Defenders (RHD) or supplied material and expertise on an unauthorised basis,” according to an Irish government note.
Nelson’s clients also raised concerns about her safety. Gary Marshall, one of Nelson’s clients, claimed that during an interrogation by the RUC at Castlereagh, he was told, “Rosemary works for the IRA and takes her orders from them.” This accusation of Nelson’s alleged affiliation with paramilitary groups painted a target on her back and intensified the threat she faced.
What Happened in Rosemary Nelson’s Final Days?
In the days leading up to her tragic death, Nelson expressed growing concern for her safety. Fearing for her life, she reached out to the Department of Foreign Affairs to request a meeting with a minister to discuss her case. An official noted that she was “very worried” and had asked if it would be possible to meet with the minister. Despite this, the NIO took no decisive action to safeguard her life.
Before her murder, the chief constable, Ronnie Flanagan, became upset over a UN special rapporteur’s report that claimed he believed solicitors like Nelson might be working for paramilitaries. Flanagan denied these claims and sought the removal of any reference to him in the report, fearing it could put Nelson’s life in danger. “If the comments were kept in the report, there may be a danger to the life of Rosemary Nelson from loyalist paramilitaries,” he warned. As a result, the special rapporteur’s office proposed to remove the names of the solicitors involved in the report, although Nelson herself felt this would be meaningless as “everybody will know the solicitors the report refers to.”
Was There a Direct Role of Security Forces in Nelson’s Murder?
A public inquiry into Nelson’s death later found no direct involvement of the security forces in her murder. However, the NIO’s failure to offer protection remains a key issue, with the documents revealing a significant oversight in securing the safety of a lawyer who had become a target due to her professional work.
What Was the Military’s Response to the Bloody Sunday Inquiry?
The newly released documents also reveal tensions within the British military over the establishment of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry. In 1998, Prime Minister Tony Blair established the inquiry, known as the Saville Inquiry, following years of campaigning by the families of those killed in the 1972 shootings in Londonderry. The inquiry sought to revisit the events of Bloody Sunday, which had previously been investigated by the Widgery Inquiry in 1972. The Widgery report had supported the soldiers’ version of events, stating they had been returning fire.
Blair’s decision to set up a new inquiry was met with strong opposition from the top British soldier in Northern Ireland, General Sir Rupert Smith. During a dinner with Irish officials at the Anglo-Irish Secretariat in Belfast in June 1998, Smith voiced his concerns, calling the new inquiry a “cynical political move” aimed at scapegoating the soldiers involved. “The soldiers were placed in an impossible position on the orders of politicians,” Smith said with “some passion,” insisting that the Widgery report had “got it about right.”
However, Smith eventually conceded that the new inquiry was part of the price to be paid for a comprehensive peace settlement. A year later, his successor, General Sir Hew Pike, voiced resistance to efforts to lift the anonymity of the soldiers involved in the events of Bloody Sunday.
What Was Blair’s Role in IRA Disarmament Discussions?
The documents also reveal a behind-the-scenes effort by Tony Blair to amend a statement by Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams regarding IRA disarmament in 2003. The statement was part of ongoing discussions between the British and Irish governments aimed at fulfilling the promises of the Good Friday Agreement.
After Bertie Ahern, the Taoiseach, and Blair issued a joint statement in April 2003 urging all parties to fulfill their commitments under the agreement, the Provisional IRA responded with a communiqué that sparked unease among the governments. Further clarification was sought from the IRA, leading to a back-and-forth between the British government, the Irish government, and Sinn Féin over the wording of Adams’ statement.
Blair ultimately requested that the IRA respond to “three questions” the governments had about the IRA statement, and Adams addressed these questions in a speech on 27 April 2003, marking the end of a lengthy and tense political negotiation process.
What Does This Reveal About the Complexities of Northern Ireland’s Peace Process?
The newly released documents offer a sobering reflection on the tragic oversight regarding Rosemary Nelson’s safety and the political tensions surrounding Northern Ireland’s troubled past. Nelson’s death remains a stark reminder of the dangers faced by those who stood up for justice in a volatile and divided society. The failure of the NIO to offer her the protection she needed, coupled with the political maneuvers surrounding events like Bloody Sunday and IRA disarmament, highlights the complex and often contentious nature of Northern Ireland’s journey toward peace.
Add a Comment