Key Takeaways
- An Afghan interpreter testified that a New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) member threatened to have him killed if he contacted the Minister of Defence about his wife’s immigration.
- The interpreter said he believed the accused was capable of carrying out the threat, citing his involvement in operations that captured Taliban leaders.
- After the alleged threat, the interpreter was ordered to leave the base for four days, a period he interpreted as an attempt to prevent him from meeting the visiting minister.
- The interpreter later brought his wife to New Zealand about a year after his own arrival and disclosed the threat only when she pressed him about sponsoring her family.
- The interpreter’s wife corroborated his account, stating she learned of the threat years later while trying to bring her own relatives to New Zealand.
- Defence counsel suggested the interpreter fabricated the threat to alleviate pressure from his wife, a claim both the interpreter and his wife denied.
- A prior Military Police statement from the accused described the interpreter as “adjusted, agitated and unusable” after his work ethic deteriorated and said he was removed from the base for four days, denying any threatening behaviour.
- The court‑martial continues, with panel members questioning the timing of the complaint and the interpreter’s motives.
Background and Allegations
The court‑martial underway at Auckland’s Devonport Naval Base centres on a charge against an NZDF member alleged to have threatened an Afghan interpreter. The interpreter, who worked on the “Kiwi base” in Afghanistan, testified that in 2013 New Zealand was withdrawing from the country and the base was being shut down. He had accepted an NZDF offer to relocate to New Zealand for his protection amid rising Taliban influence. At the time of his immigration interview he was single, but he later married and sought to bring his wife to New Zealand, a request the NZDF denied.
Interpreter’s Testimony about the Threat
During his testimony, the interpreter recounted a conversation in which the accused NZDF member warned him, “If you try to speak to the Minister of Defence, we will talk to your Government to blacklist you and have you killed… and you and your family can’t do anything about it.” When asked by prosecutor Steele whether he believed the accused was capable of such action, the interpreter replied affirmatively, noting that before the threat he had participated in NZDF missions that led to the capture of Taliban leaders and claimed he had also been involved in releasing them without consequence.
NZDF Member’s Prior Statement
A Military Police statement from the accused, read aloud by Steele, presented a different picture. It stated that the interpreter was removed from the base for four days because his work ethic had deteriorated after learning his wife could not immigrate. The report described him as having become “adjusted, agitated and unusable” in his role and emphasised that at no time did he exhibit threatening behaviour toward the complainant. The interpreter, however, viewed his removal as a punitive measure.
Interpreter’s Life in New Zealand and Wife’s Immigration
After completing his four‑day absence, the interpreter returned to base and later travelled to New Zealand around Anzac Day, arriving without his wife. He stated that he managed to bring her to New Zealand approximately one year after his own settlement. Throughout this period he said he kept the threat to himself, fearing reprisal, and only disclosed it when his wife began questioning why they could not sponsor her family to join them in New Zealand.
Wife’s Testimony
The interpreter’s wife took the stand with the assistance of an interpreter. She recalled immigrating to New Zealand in 2014 and said it was only in 2017, while attempting to bring her own relatives over, that her husband first mentioned the alleged threat on his life. She described pressing him for explanations about why she had not been brought with him initially, at which point he revealed the threat. Defence counsel Matthew Hague again suggested the interpreter had invented the story to stop his wife from hassling him about family sponsorship.
Defence’s Position and Cross‑Examination
Hague’s line of questioning portrayed the interpreter as motivated by marital pressure, asking, “It was a lie that you made up because you were under pressure from your wife, wasn’t it?” The interpreter firmly denied this, insisting the threat was real. The interpreter’s wife echoed his denial, stating she would not be upset even if he admitted to lying, but maintained that he had not done so. She added that she had encouraged him to seek justice, noting that his fear initially prevented him from speaking about the incident.
Closing Observations and Ongoing Proceedings
A panel member queried why the interpreter waited roughly a decade to lodge a formal complaint. The wife responded that her husband had been pursuing justice and that, had he remained silent, she would have felt compelled to push him further. Hague pressed, asking whether she had told him she would withdraw support if he did not seek justice; she replied that at the outset he had been too frightened to discuss the matter, and she had assisted him in overcoming that fear. The court‑martial remains adjourned for further testimony, with both sides preparing to present additional evidence before a final verdict is reached.
Ella Scott‑Fleming, a journalist with three years of experience covering justice‑related stories for outlets such as the Otago Daily Times and Metro Magazine, is reporting from Auckland on the proceedings.