TSHEKEDI KHAMA (BANISHMENT)

HC Deb 31 July 1951 vol 491 cc1308-45

9.59 p.m.

Mr. Clement Davies (Montgomery)

I am particularly grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for calling me now, for I propose to utilise the opportunity you have so given me to raise the question of the conditions in the Bamangwato Reserve in Bechuanaland and, once again, the position of Tshekedi Khama. As is well known, the House will be rising this week and there will be no opportunity of raising this matter again until we re-assemble some time in October. This is an urgent matter affecting not only this tribe; I am afraid it is likely to have repercussions over quite a vast area of Africa.

Since the debate took place in this House on 26th June, the situation amongst the Bamangwato people has undoubtedly greatly deteriorated. It will be remembered that in that debate the Secretary of State referred to the fact that Tshekedi Khama was unpopular. He went out of his way to emphasise that, and he read a telegram to the House which he had received from Cape Town stating that the return of Tshekedi Khama to his own home would be viewed by his own people with apprehension, and indeed going so far as to say that if he did return home the tribe would scatter.

It will be remembered too, that the reading of that telegram preceded the offer to submit the question whether Tshekedi Khama should be allowed to return home to his own people to a kgotla which should be held in the presence of hon. Members of this House, who would be invited to attend as observers. The reading in this House of that telegram from the Resident Commissioner in South Africa to the right hon. Gentleman, which had been communicated back to South Africa, was not the kind of thing that would conduce towards a fairer trial by his own people of Tshekedi Khama.

But before I come to what has happened since, let me point out to the House a few matters. The kgotla was to be summoned to ascertain whether Tshekedi Khama's banishment should be ended and he should be allowed to return to his own home. It is just as well to point out, first, that before Tshekedi Khama was banished he was not the object of any accusation by anybody amongst his own people—not a single word against him by any one of them. Secondly, no case was brought against him before his own people or before his own people assembled in kgotla. Thirdly, he was not banished by his own people, he was not banished by his tribe. He was banished not by an order of his tribe but by an order made by the right hon. Gentleman.

No banishment in the long history of this tribe has, so far as we can ascertain, ever taken place in that territory without a full and fair trial before it. That has been the law and the custom of this tribe from time immemorial. I should have thought that was in keeping with what would be regarded as the proper administration of justice in any country, in accordance with what is often referred to as natural justice, but it has remained for an English Secretary of State to introduce a new form of administration and to punish a man by order without holding any trial of any kind whatever, and bringing amongst these primitive or so-called primitive people a new form of administration of justice.

And be it noted against whom it was directed: a man against whom no charge was brought, a man who had had the confidence not only of his own people but of successive Commissioners and successive Secretaries of State for 23 years, a man who had earned the respect of successive Governors and, above all, had earned the respect of General Smuts. He was banished not by his tribe, but by the order of the British Government. That, I submit, was a wrong. It is a continuing wrong directed against this man. It is a wrong which can only be put right—and it should be put right—by the persons who committed it.

If somebody commits a wrong, it is not to be expected that that wrong should be righted by somebody else. It should be righted by the person who commits the wrong. In this case, this wrong has been committed by the Secretary of State in banishing this man, and it can be righted only by the Secretary of State making it possible for him to go back and, when he does go back, protecting him against wrongdoers and evildoers.

It is an extraordinary situation which is to be seen today, and which has been seen for the last two years. The man who has been banished was trusted during all these years. His position now, so far as the Government are concerned, has been taken by a man called Keaboka, a member of a faction which was not only opposed to Tshekedi Khama but which had caused trouble to his father, to whom tributes have been paid by the right hon. Gentleman and all his predecessors as a very remarkable man who looked after his people and who—the first time he met a white man—came into contact with David Livingstone.

This man who is now taking the place of Tshekedi Khama, so far as the Government are concerned, is the adviser of this faction. Tshekedi Khama has received testimonials from many sources, but who is Keaboka? He is a man who is not only causing trouble now, but who caused trouble during the war. He caused so much trouble during the war that he had to be detained. He has been described as a young man, unstable in character, who has never held an administrative post; yet he is taking the place of the chief at Serowe and he has been doing so ever since Tshekedi was banished from the area of his tribe.

That is the man whom the Secretary of State and the District Commissioner have relied upon during these years. Of course, that man hates Tshekedi and all that Tshekedi stands for, and has stood for. During the whole period that Tshekedi has been there, from the time when he was put in charge of the small boy aged four and a half who was to become the Chief, and who is today regarded by his people as the Chief, there has been no trouble whatever among these people. There has been no rioting. Certainly, there have been no threats offered against anyone, and no victimisation.

But what is the position today? There are rioting threats, victimisation, fear, and peaceful people who have done no wrong have to seek protection around the Residence. Why? Because they are not anti-Tshekedi Khama. After the debate on 26th June—

Mr. Paget (Northampton)

Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman leaves that point, has not the whole of this trouble started since the Liberal Party started making trouble?

Mr. Davies

If this trouble has arisen because the Liberal Party cares about the freedom of a single man, it is something of which I can be proud. I respect the individual whoever he may be. I refuse to have anybody victimised, wherever he may be. I am entitled to express that view, and I do not think that the hon. and learned Member gets the support of a single man on his side of the House.

After the debate of 26th June, Tshekedi Khama communicated with the right hon. Gentleman, or his Department, and what did he say? He said that he was anxious to co-operate in summoning the kgotla, but that he wanted, of course, to be quite sure that it would be properly summoned, that there would be a fair opportunity given to him of presenting his case before the kgotla, that they would be free to support him and that no prior directions should be given to anyone. He wanted to know when it would be summoned, what length of time there would be for the people to come and what notice could be given. Of course, he also wanted time in which he himself could go amongst his people freely and talk to them, remembering that he has been absent for two years now and that the most poisonous rumours and statements have been made against him by the people who hate him.

Before any reply was received to his letters, which were written, I think, on 30th June and 2nd July, disturbing news reached him from Serowe that meetings were being held by his enemies, the whole object being to create feeling against him, and that these meetings were summoned or presided over by Keaboka. Not content with even holding the meetings, men were sent out from the meetings to threaten and terrify those who were regarded as Tshekedi's friends, and all those who were opposed to Tshekedi Khama were threatened in this way.

One Saturday, it is said that several hundred men entered Tshekedi Khama's old home and forced the people who were there to go outside. Ultimately, these people had to seek the protection of the Commissioner, at his residence. What is more, tribal trucks were used by these people to go from village to village to threaten the people, and the whole object was to drive away from Serowe—and this will become plainer in a moment, when I read a message which I have received as to what was happening yesterday—to drive away from Serowe, lock, stock and barrel, the men, and the goods belonging to them, who dared to support Tshekedi Khama.

I could read a whole number of letters and telegrams which I have received, and which have come from that area since 26th June, but I will content myself with reading a short summary contained in a letter written to the right hon. Gentleman's Department on 11th July by the solicitors acting for Tshekedi Khama. They wrote: We are instructed to put on record the facts as they appear to us from the reports reaching us of the disturbances in Serowe. On the 5th July, a Chief's kgotla was held. It was an official assembly in the official place and not a mere casual meeting over which the District Commissioner might have had no jurisdiction. At that kgotla the persons assembled were informed that Tshekedi Khama was returning to the Bamangwato Reserve to claim the chieftainship and that they should object to his return. That is the kind of statement that is being made throughout—that he was claiming the chieftainship, although he has put it on record as plainly as a man can do that he was not claiming the chieftainship, not only for himself but also for his children, and the direct result of this—

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Gordon-Walker)

Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman clear up the point as to who made that statement about the chieftainship? By whom was that made?

Mr. Davies

I am reading from a letter which, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, was sent to him by the solicitors.

Mr. Gordon-Walker

The right hon. and learned Gentleman has said that somebody said Tshekedi Khama had not renounced the chieftainship. Would he tell us who had said that?

Mr. Davies

Surely, the right hon. Gentleman himself—I have got the letters and correspondence here—knows quite well that these rumours were being circulated all the time. He will remember that when the first trouble arose, Tshekedi Khama asked that the Commission should inquire into it and put an end to it. He actually wrote to the District Commissioner asking him to inquire into it so that the rumour might be stopped once and for all.

Mr. Gordon-Walker

In view of the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just announced to the House that somebody made the statement, I think he ought to say who made it.

Mr. Davies

It is contained in the very letter I am reading to the House.

Mr. Gordon-Walker

Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman please read it again?

Mr. Davies

I am reading it. The original is in the possession of the right hon. Gentleman, and I have only a copy. At that kgotla the persons assembled were informed"—

Mr. Gordon-Walker

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say by whom, please?

Mr. Davies

It must have been by the persons acting at the kgotla— that Tshekedi Khama was returning to the Bamangwato Reserve to claim the chieftainship and that they should object to his return. As a direct result of this, on the same day some 50 persons went to Tshekedi's house, which Rasebolai is occupying"— I understand he is a relative of Tshekedi— and where Rasebolai and other supporters of Tshekedi's cause were then present and demanded that they should leave the Bamangwato Reserve"— that is, the whole area— Rasebolai and the others refused and no further action or disturbance occurred then. On 7th July Rasebolai and others while in Tshekedi's house (not while in the street) were attacked by a crowd of over 100 men led by a member of the Sekgome family and were forced outside the house and the yard. Several of Rasebolai's supporters were seized and placed on a lorry. Rasebolai and two others were rescued by a police car. The lorry was later intercepted by the Police and the other men were released. There have been disturbances also at Palapye, Mahalapye and Shoshong. At Mahalapye a kgotla was held at which the same propaganda was put to those present as at the kgotla at Serowe. It is significant that these are the places at which the Sekgome family have influence and there can he little doubt but that they are responsible for the misrepresentations of Tshekedi Khama's cause and the resulting incidents. The incidents are not a spontaneous demonstration of unpopular feeling towards Tshekedi. Rasebolai and his supporters acknowledged, with gratitude, the police protection given to them and we note Mr. Secretary Gordon-Walker's assurance that the offenders will be prosecuted. We must point out our dissatisfaction with two matters, however, namely:—

1. 1. That the offenders were not arrested there and then and charged with the offences which they have so obviously committed, and
2. 2. That Rasebolai and his supporters are now virtually imprisoned instead of the offenders; it would seem more reasonable that the lawless elements should be taken into custody at once instead of the police cordoning off Rasebolai and his supporters because of the continued freedom of a few irresponsible offenders.

Having regard to these incidents and having regard to the apparent difficulties in your framing replies to us upon our question as to how the proposed tribal kgotla is to he convened and conducted, we are instructed to propose that there should be a judicial inquiry into the proper method of convening and conducting the proposed kgotla. As we have indicated throughout our correspondence with you, our client accepts Mr. Secretary Gordon-Walker's proposal for a kgotla provided that it is strictly in accordance with native custom. That it will be so convened and conducted is becoming increasingly doubtful as the situation develops and there appears to be doubt in the minds of the Administration upon the methods and course to be adopted. That doubt could be resolved by the inquiry we have suggested which could take the form of:—

1. 1. A special commission to be held at, say Mafeking; or
2. 2. A petition, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, to the Privy Council."

That is a summary, as I understand it, of the messages which have come from Serowe. On the same day as that letter was sent, the Secretary of State sent his offer to Tshekedi Khama. This is the letter: I am directed by Mr. Secretary Gordon-Walker to furnish the following information in reply to your letters of 29th June, 2nd July and 7th July. Obviously this does not apply to the one I have just read out. Those letters crossed. As stated in the House of Commons, the Government intend to invite the Bamangwato tribe to hold a further kgotla attended by observers to determine the tribe's views on the question whether Mr. Tshekedi Khama, having renounced all claim to the chieftainship"— those are the words of this letter from the right hon. Gentleman's Department: "having renounced all claim to the chieftainship"— should be allowed to return to the Bamangwato Reserve as a private individual. The Secretary of State hopes that observers will be ready to leave the United Kingdom by air within a fortnight. On their arrival in the Bamangwato Reserve and in their presence a meeting will be held with representatives of the inhabitants of the Reserve. I hope that the House will observe that—"representatives of the inhabitants of the Reserve." How were they to be found? Who was to choose them? How were they to be elected? Detailed arrangements for the kgotla cannot, therefore, he settled until these discussions have taken place and the Secretary of State has received the views of the observers. This must also apply to questions such as the date of the kgotla and your client's representations regarding the interval which should elapse between the summons for and the holding of a kgotla will be made known to the observers. The Secretary of State wishes to repeat what he said in the House of Commons on 26th June about Mr. Khama's entry into the Bamangwato Reserve for the purpose of the kgotla. Then the letter quotes from the right hon. Gentleman's speech: There are some doubts"— said the right hon. Gentleman, under native law and custom of Tshekedi's rights to attend such a Kgotla. I say that the exclusion order will not operate as a bar to his attending. After all, that is all the Government can do in this matter. I would go further and say that I personally think it would be right that he should attend. But it is not for me, and, I suggest, neither is it for the House, with propriety, to over-ride high-handedly native law and custom and the regular and normal way of doing these things. We must pay some attention to that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th June, 1951; Vol. 489, c. 1236.] I hope notice will be taken of that statement by the right hon. Gentleman in view of the statement which comes further down in this letter, which goes on: The Secretary of State's intention, subject to consultation with representatives of the inhabitants of the Reserve in the presence of the observers, and after receiving the views of the observers, is that during the period from the date on which the decision to hold a kgotla, attended by Mr. Khama, is taken until the date on which the kgotla is held Mr. Khama should be at liberty to be in the Reserve. Therefore, in that event, the exclusion order under Section 3 of Proclamation No. 15 of 1907, which must be renewed after Mr. Khama's return to the Bechuanaland Protectorate, would not operate as a bar on his entry into the Reserve; the necessary permission for entry would be given in writing as provided in the Proclamation. Mr. Gordon-Walker therefore suggests that Mr. Khama would be well advised to arrange his arrival in the Bechuanaland Protectorate about the same time as the observers, that is, about 24th July, so that his entry into the Reserve should not be delayed. As Mr. Khama is aware, the U.K. Government will be responsible for the cost of his air passage back to Bechuanaland and this Department would welcome information about Mr. Khama's wishes in regard to a suitable booking. The Government are at present considering the arrangements that may have to be made for Mr. Khama's own personal security from molestation while in the Reserve, and he will be given further information about this later. It may be necessary to request Mr. Khama to keep the Administration advised of his movements so that any steps deemed necessary for his protection can be taken. To turn to the detailed questions set out in your letter of 29th June: (1) and (5). Section 4 of the Bechuanaland Protectorate (Bamangwato Reserve) Administration Proclamation No. 10 of 1950 at present provides for the assembly of the tribe in kgotla and the appointment of a person to preside. Both questions will be settled in the presence of the observers after their arrival. (2) The Administration has made and will make clear the purpose of the kgotla as described earlier in this letter and that your client has renounced all claim to the chieftainship. (3) The Government's purpose is that the proposed kgotla should be as widely representative of the inhabitants of the Reserve as possible. The Government have no objection to chiefs and representatives of other tribes being invited to attend. But, as your client is aware, these are matters that are normally governed by native law and custom and cannot be settled until there has been discussion with representatives of the inhabitants of the Reserve in the presence of the observers. (4) The Government's intention is that procedure at the proposed kgotla will as far as possible be in accord with custom. Your client will, however, realise that the proposed kgotla attended by observers is probably without precise precedent. It is for this reason impossible to determine all the detailed arrangements until there has been discussion with the representatives of the inhabitants of the Reserve in the presence of the observers. That is the position. It is not a kgotla summoned in accordance with custom as understood, but, as the right hon. Gentleman says in his letter, it is something for which there had been no precedent in the past. Tshekedi Khama asked that it should be called in the form in which it had been called from time immemorial.

It is necessary that I should read the reply to that letter. It is rather a long letter, and I will only read extracts from it. It says Our client expresses his regret that the questions put in our letter of the 29th ultimo have been relegated to the meeting described in your letter and he instructs us to say that the procedure detailed in your letter is quite unacceptable to him. As to paragraph 2, with regard to the Government's intention to invite the Bamangwato Tribe to hold a further kgotla to determine the tribe's views on the question whether Tshekedi Khama should be allowed to return to his home in the Bamangwato Reserve as a private individual, we point out:—(a) Tshekedi Khama was not banished by the Bamangwato Tribe. No kgotla was called to consider his position in any manner whatsoever. (b) He was banished by the order of the British Government alone. (c) He was banished without a charge of any kind being made against him, and, of course, without trial. (d) It is threatened in your letter that his banishment will be continued by the British Government and by its order. Our client requires the withdrawal of the threat of continuation of the banishment order, which was in his view a wrong which should be righted by the British Government, and to be allowed to return to his home as a private individual. If on his return home any threats are made or action taken by anyone against him, his family or his property, it is the duty of the British Government to protect him, his family and his property. This leads us to paragraph 6, under which advice of movements by our client may be required. Reports received by our client and by us show clearly that the present disturbances are local and not tribal and that they are instigated by one man Keaboka. His personal assistance in the assaults made upon our client's supporters justify his immediate arrest. If that step were taken, the disturbances would cease and there would be no cause for protective measures in respect of our client and his supporters. Surely this is the one way that law and order can be maintained. Then he goes on to refer to how the kgotla would ordinarily be called. I am not going to read all this long letter, but I had to read the letter from the right hon. Gentleman so that I would not be accused of reading only pieces of it.

In the meantime requests had been made to the Conservative Party and to the Liberal Party to nominate observers to go out. I am not quite sure of the date, but it was some time about the date of those letters. I understand the Conservative Party refused; the Liberal Party certainly refused.

Mr. George Wigg (Dudley)

Why?

Mr. Davies

I have given my reason. In the first place, we thought it wrong that a wrong which had been committed by the Government and could only be put right by the Government should be thrown on to somebody else, namely, a kgotla, to try to put right the wrong the Government had done. It was really hiding behind the people themselves to avoid a responsibility which had fallen upon the right hon. Gentleman.

Secondly, we felt that no good purpose could possibly be achieved by anyone going out for a few days to try to ascertain what was the position, going about from place to place, hearing now this lot and then that lot, and trying to find out what the position was. I am not certain that there is anyone in this House who could answer the questions properly. For those reasons we refused to appoint a representative, and since then, as is well known to the House, three observers have been sent who are not Members of the House.

They have gone out and they have quite obviously met separate people in separate meetings. They have met those who were opposed to Tshekedi and those who are Tshekedi's friends. Quite clearly there is trouble and increasing excitement, and those who are against Tshekedi have had a free run, and are still having a free run, while Tshekedi's friends have been terrified and threatened. Does anyone think that, in these circumstances, it is fair to submit this man's future to a decision to be undertaken by these people at present? Does anyone think it is fair to do this when there is such a state of excitement, and when these rumours, which are known to be false, are going about?

I think it is only right that I should give the House the information which came to me in a cable from Serowe yesterday. It shows the state of affairs which exists. It says: It is practically certain now that no full tribal kgotla with Tshekedi present will be held, as proposed by the Minister for Commonwealth Relations, Mr. Gordon-Walker, and suggested by the three British observers at their first meeting with the Bamangwato headmen yesterday. A flare-up occurred yesterday afternoon soon after the departure for England of the retiring High Commissioner for the Protectorates, Sir Evelyn Baring. That is easily explained and will appear later from my reading of this. The tribal leaders, supporters of Seretse and opponents of Tshekedi's return, heard from a newspaper correspondent that Tshekedi was planning to return to the Bamangwato Reserve this week, whereas it is clear that the present intention of Tshekedi is to return to the neighbouring Bakwena Reserve. Around the campfires in the evening, the leaders, Keaboka and Peto, held a discussion with the 350 headmen who had assembled for the earlier meeting with the three British observers. The people were obviously excited and this excitement increased as the discussion proceeded. Seretse's lawyer later told the Press that the headmen had passed a resolution criticising the High Commissioner for not telling them of Tshekedi's intention to return to the Reserve, and refusing to hold a joint kgotla with Tshekedi present. This decision was taken by the headmen despite their earlier promise to the observers that they would return to their villages and discuss their request for a joint kgotla before giving a final decision. On behalf of the Administration, the Acting High Commissioner, Mr. H. E. Turnbull, stated that Tshekedi would return to the Reserve only after agreement had been reached, The tribal headmen broke camp last night and returned to their villages in a state of high agitation and excitement. Meanwhile Tshekedi's adherents spent a hectic weekend trying to round up their supporters between points separated by as much as 400 miles. They had only three trucks with which to do this. This rush is due to the fact that Tshekedi's senior representative, Raseholai, was told late on Friday of the plan to hold a meeting with the observers today. One Tshekedi supporter, having heard about today's meeting late on Saturday, walked 50 miles to Palapye to be present. Unlike the faction which opposes Tshekedi's return, Rasebolai did not have the full use of Government vehicles to arrange this rush job. His refusal to request Government support in bringing his people is believed to be due to his feeling of non-co-operation on the part of the Administration towards Tshekedi's supporters. This morning nearly 90 Tshekedi supporters assembled, but had no opportunity of holding any discussions between themselves before their meeting with the observers. Some of these facts were placed before the observers when Rasebolai outlined the case of Tshekedi's supporters. His case was based on the following points:—

1. "1. The recent `commotions' in the territory had been deliberately stirred up with a view to the intimidation of the people who might otherwise declare their support for Tshekedi's return, thereby prejudicing his return;
2. 2. Widespread victimisation was being practised against known Tshekedi suppor- 1320 ters. Witness after witness rose to give the observers their personal experiences at the hands of the anti-Tshekedi faction, including threats to confiscate their property.
3. 3. It was alleged that the Administration had persistently failed to deal with complaints of assault, theft and victimisation lodged with the officials. Full details were given of each case and of the alleged failure to take effective action. Some speakers went so far as to suggest that the officials favoured discriminatory action being taken against Tshekedi's supporters.
4. 4. His supporters were in favour of the return of Seretse as chief, and of Tshekedi as a private citizen, and they were agreeable to support the proposal for a joint kgotla so that his detractors could face Tshekedi himself. Seretse's uncle, Oteng, told the observers that all Tshekedi supporters present at the meeting with the observers would be in real danger when they returned to their distant villages in view of the threats made against them. Many had already been victimized, assaulted, and had had their cattle taken away. There could be no assurance of safety for their persons after they left the meeting today, he said. I have been unable to determine whether this is an exaggeration, but it undoubtedly represents the feeling of these supporters who are present today.

The observers have been placed in an awkward position. Their present terms of reference preclude their handling questions arising from the demand—which is unanimous—for the return of Seretse. Nor can they deal with complaints against the local officials. Yet it is clearly difficult to deal with the case of Tshekedi as an isolated event unless the whole matter of the banishments and the Administration's policy are inquired into. An increasingly tense situation has been further complicated by the ultimatum handed to the High Commissioner yesterday morning by Keaboka, leader of the anti-Tshekedi faction, demanding that all Tshekedi supporters be expelled from the Reserve before August 15. The three observers are much less sanguine today than when they arrived. In such a state of affairs, one asks, "Who is ruling?"

Mr. James Johnson (Rugby)

Who said it?

Mr. Davies

It was sent by a correspondent from Serowe who is there at present. Who rules in this area? Is it Keaboka, who says, "Everybody against me must clear out"? This, after 75 years of peace, an improving standard of living, better education, and no trouble whatever! There was no trouble whatever until action was taken against these two men. Does the House realise how much this man who has been expelled has done for his country? Does the House recall the German treatment of natives in West Africa, from whence 1,400 came and put themselves under Tshekedi's protection? There are 14,000 of those people in the area today, and they are some of the best men in Africa. That is the man who has been expelled.

Why, again, was the report which was handed to the Secretary for Commonwealth Relations never given to the House and to the people? I must read again and call the attention of right hon. and hon. Members to paragraph 10 of the Report of March, 1950: The Report of the Enquiry was received at the end of 1949, and, together with the evidence tendered, has been the subject of the most careful study by His Majesty's Government in personal consultation with the High Commissioner, in the light of all the information available to them of African opinion in the High Commission Territories and elsewhere in Southern Africa. They have considered whether the Report should be published. As the Report and the accompanying evidence form only a part of the matters considered by His Majesty's Government, they would present an incomplete and unbalanced picture. What were the things other than were contained in the Report to which the right hon. Gentleman was giving attention? Moreover certain arguments are advanced "— I take it in the Report— and views expressed. … which are not accepted by His Majesty's Government, and with which they could not associate themselves. The danger that such parts of the Report would be quoted without its being made clear that they had not the approval of His Majesty's Government is so great that His Majesty's Government have decided that the Report cannot be published. What were those matters that the Government was afraid of publishing? Could not they also have said, "We do not agree with that statement or this statement," and make it perfectly clear to everyone? But instead, that Report has been kept secret to this day, and a man has been banished without a trial and without a charge—a man who had won the respect of everybody, from the highest down to the people whom he protected; a man who had helped to save his own people, from drink and otherwise.

One last matter and I have finished. If this had been done by the right hon. Gentleman in any area other than this area, in any area other than that in which the law is still under that Proclamation of 1907, that out-of-date matter which has been rectified in certain other parts of Africa, I would not have troubled this House with the case of Tshekedi Khama, nor with the case of Seretse. The action would have lain against the right hon. Gentleman in the Royal Courts of Justice. What would have happened would have been the taking out of a writ of habeas corpus directed to the right hon. Gentleman, and he would have been answerable for that before His Majesty's judges.

But now, the right hon. Gentleman having committed this wrong, having banished this man, he does not put him back, but he says, "I will wait to hear whether his people will take him back. I will shelter behind them. And I warn the House that he is already unpopular. I warn the House, and I read a telegram. If he goes back this is what will happen. The tribe will disperse." That, coming from a country which is proud of its administration of its justice, proud of the fact that it has at any rate put its hand to, although it has not yet been made the law of this land, the Charter of Human Rights. This is an offence against that Charter, and it is right that the House should deal with this matter.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. R. A. Butler (Saffron Walden)

We recognise that the initiative in opening this debate has been taken by the Liberal Party, and we have listened to a long and, I think, most sincere speech by the Leader of the Liberal Party. I shall confine myself to just two main causes of disquiet which are agitating our minds. The first is that my hon. and right hon. Friends are most anxious to make quite sure—and I fear we may be disappointed, but I should like to take this opportunity of finding out from the right hon. Gentleman—whether the case of Tshekedi Khama has, in fact, not already been prejudiced almost beyond repair by the procedure which he originally suggested, and to which we took objection. That is the first issue.

I shall keep my speech short, and I promise the House that I have no telegram or quotations to read. The second point on which I wish to obtain some clarification from the right hon. Gentleman is that the procedure which he has suggested, and for which he has made himself responsible. has not detracted from the constitutional duty of a Secretary of State —and one of His Majesty's principal Secretaries of State—to act in a matter which involves individual liberty, and upon which he alone ought to have the right to take the final executive decision. If I confine my remarks to those two important issues it will be seen that I can be short, and yet make a contribution which is worth while.

The first of these issues—has the case of Tshekedi Khama been prejudiced—raises a subject upon which the right hon. and learned Gentleman waxed eloquent in the concluding portions of his speech, and that is the time-honoured question of the liberty of the subject. I have discussed this matter with the right hon. Gentleman before now in private, and I have not yet had an opportunity of debating it with him in public. But I have already expressed my views to him in private that, on this question of principle, I certainly support—and I believe that my right hon. and hon. Friends also support—the Liberal initiative in making a bid to look after, and take care of, the liberty of the subject wherever he may be, particularly if the British Parliament and the British name is involved.

In this connection I need not detain the House because I need only refer hon. Members to what I think was the moving and, if I may use the expression, noble speech of the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris) in our previous debate on this subject. He said all that was necessary. However difficult, however embarrassing this situation may be, I confess that I have sufficient of what I might call—in, deference to the initiators of this debate—Liberal instincts in my veins, which, I believe, are shared with my party, in daring to take a definite side on this subject, however embarrassing the situation may be to the right hon. Gentleman. There are certain matters upon which the Brtiish Parliament should take a stand, and this is one of them.

Let me apply myself to the two issues upon which I wish to get some clarification from the right hon. Gentleman. The first is: has the case of Tshekedi Khama been prejudged and prejudiced by the procedure which the right hon. Gentleman himself suggested, and which he took the responsibility of bringing before this House? In my opinion, unless he can give some fresh evidence in answer to the many detailed points already raised there can be only one answer to this question, and that is that the kgotla procedure, against which we spoke, and on the weaknesses of which we warned the Government, has not so far proved fair to the case of Tshekedi Khama.

Further, the information we are getting, by wire and otherwise, from the area itself, indicates that the enemies of Tshekedi have an unrivalled opportunity to rig the market against him in his absence. Further—and if the right hon. Gentleman can refute my statement, I shall be only too glad—I am convinced that to hold a tribal moot or kgotla, or whatever we like to call it, in the absence of the man who is to be arraigned before it, without permitting him to use his influence and, at the same time, permitting persecution to take place of his family, means that his case must be prejudged by this procedure, which we had already warned the right hon. Gentleman was not likely to be effective.

From the information we have been able to obtain—and it is always possible for the Opposition to obtain information from individuals, though not always from official sources—it is the intention of Tshekedi Khama to return to Africa very shortly. Now I want to question the right hon. Gentleman about what is likely to happen to Tshekedi when he arrives by plane. Is he to be served immediately with an exclusion order? I should like a categorical answer to that question.

If he is to be served with an exclusion order, we consider that even though, as has been stated in the long letter which the right hon. and learned Gentleman read, that exclusion order is to be raised to enable him to go into the Reserve and appear before the kgotla, yet we consider that the serving of an exclusion order would, in fact, further prejudice and prejudge the case and would make the man look guilty on his arrival on African soil. We should, therefore, like a categorical answer that it is not the intention of the right hon. Gentleman and the Government to serve an exclusion order on Tshekedi Khama immediately he lands.

My second question, in relation to the personal side of this case, is in regard to the alleged status of the observers; and this leads me on to the more general con stitutional issue. The right hon. and learned Gentleman gave his reasons why the Liberal Party were not ready to take part in sending observers from their own ranks. I can only say that I accept absolutely the reasons, which were identical with our own; except that it may have been that we felt even more strongly that it would be inappropriate to send any of our number to take part in this affair.

But that decision has been taken. It now appears from reports that we receive—and this gives the right hon. Gentleman the chance of answering me if I am wrong—that the observers are to be elevated in status to decide whether, in fact, Tshekedi can go in or not, and what the result is to be. We consider that if that be the case, the right hon. Gentleman is raising the status of the observers, who should be observers, to the status of the Secretary of State himself. We should like, therefore, an assurance from him that there is no intention of so raising the constitutional status of the observers and that they are not going to take executive or judicial decisions, especially executive decisions, which ought to be taken by the right hon. Gentleman himself.

That has enabled me in a comparatively short compass, first, to raise the question as to whether the rights of this man are being prejudiced by the procedure adopted. Our opinion is that they are. Our opinion is that this kgotla procedure was unworkable from the start and has landed the right hon. Gentleman and the area in question, and the person in question, in a most embarrassing and unfortunate position. The second issue is that the right hon. Gentleman must not put off the responsibility from his own shoulders, since he is perfectly capable of bearing it; and if there are decisions to be taken, he must take them himself and not put them off on to the observers.

Those are the questions I wish to ask, and without detaining the House any longer at this late hour I ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer them. I ask him to give some assurance to the House that he has some respect for the deep feeling undoubtedly felt on these benches and on the benches from the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) has spoken, that individual liberty means something to the British Parliament; that justice, above all, and the non-prejudicing of a personal case mean more, and that he himself will stand before the House this evening and give us some satisfaction that the name of Britain stands where it did.

10.52 p.m.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu (Brigg)

I shall not detain the House for long. I wish to say how grateful I am to the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) for having raised this matter again and how proud I am that it should have been raised a second time in the House of Commons in so short a period when it appears to concern merely an individual and his rights and privileges. I think there is a great deal more at stake even than those important rights and privileges of the individual.

When we last had our debate in the House, my right hon. Friend announced his dramatic decision to send observers from the House to observe the kgotla which it was proposed to hold to find out the wishes of the tribe as to whether Tshekedi Khama should be allowed back or not. That was such an obvious concession towards those of us on this side of the House, and on the other side of the House, who felt deeply on this matter that I felt there was little more to be said at that time.

I did, however, and many other hon. Members did also, press my right hon. Friend to ensure that if and when this kgotla was held it should be held under conditions which would give a really fair hearing to Tshekedi Khama in an atmosphere of calm. It should be felt also that this kgotla was not summoned—perhaps prompted and instructed beforehand—by this man's enemies. It would, indeed, be a most extraordinary thing if any man could rule energetically and progressively for as long a time as Tshekedi Khama ruled over Bechuanaland Protectorate as paramount Chief, without making some enemies.

But that is very nearly what he did. It was only when he and Seretse Khama were out of the way, for reasons with which the House is familiar, that there crept out of their holes these representatives of the other faction in the dynastic feud, which had been kept quiet for 23 years largely owing to the enlightened rule of Tshekedi Khama himself. It was only then that they crept out and began to cause trouble, and they did it by spreading lies, as the right hon. and learned Member has said, about Tshekedi's intentions with regard to the chieftainship in the future.

Tshekedi has, of course, repeatedly renounced any claim to the chieftainship, and now his rivals are saying that they want the return of Seretse. Why do they want the return of Seretse at the present time? Is not this their scheme, and is it not perfectly obvious? They are saying to themselves, "Let us take care of Tshekedi. We can show, by stirring up the necessary trouble if need be, that he is a person who is a source of disorder in the Bechuanaland Protectorate, and we can leave it to the Secretary of State to take care of Seretse because he will not dare to send Seretse back owing to the repercussions which such action might have elsewhere on the Government of the Union." So, of course, they are remaining supreme in the absence of both.

If my right hon. Friend had been in the pockets of members of the rival faction, he could not have done more for them than he has at the present time. God forbid that he should ever be in such an unsavoury position and I am certain he is not. In the course of answering Questions put to him by myself and other hon. Members not many days ago, he permitted himself the remark that there had been no disorder until there was the debate in this House of Commons, thereby seeming to accept the view of the rival Sekgoma faction, that Tshekedi was a source of trouble. Of course, there is trouble now—

Mr. Gordon-Walker indicated dissent—

Mr. Mallalieu

My right hon. Friend shakes his head, but if that was not the implication, what was it? The implication is there that it was the debate in the House and that right hon. Gentlemen opposite were stirring up trouble.

There has been disorder of late stirred-up by the Sekgoma faction. If the officers on the spot had taken in hand this matter of putting across to the tribesmen that Tshekedi was not a claimant to the chieftainship, I believe they would have succeeded, and, if they had succeeded, there would have been no disorder. The fact is they have not succeeded in that, and I am sorry to say that I see very little evidence that they have even tried. It is a matter of singular misfortune that the man on the spot in this case is none other than that South African official, District Commissioner Germond, who was primarily responsible for that action against Tshekedi Khama in the 'thirties when there was that ill-advised adventure of the acting High Commissioner Evans, being advised theatrically to leave the Union and come into the Protectorate with his naval gun and naval detachment to humiliate Tshekedi because he had carried out what was then the legitimate decision of the kgotla to flog a "poor white" who had been interfering with black women.

I say that however impartial this man may be, and I accept my right hon. Friend's assessment of his qualities in this regard, he should not have been left in charge of this situation: so long as he is in charge of the justice on the spot, so long will justice not appear to be done. As the official on the spot, I have no doubt, he tenders his advice to the official who is higher up than himself, who, in turn, passes that advice to the next higher official, and so on up through the official hierarchy until it reaches my right hon. Friend, who is able truthfully to say to the House, as he did, that all the officials on the spot took this view or advised that particular course of action. Is not that what officials always do? Are not they so loyal to themselves in their own trade union that sometimes they forget to be just to outsiders as well?

I sincerely hope that my right hon. Friend will not sail away from my argument on this particular point by saying that I have attacked an official who is not here to defend himself. I have attacked no official at all. I have merely said that so long as this official is in his position justice cannot appear to be done. He may be an absolute paragon of disinterestedness, he may be a prince of objectivity, but justice will not appear to be done so long as he is there. I hope that we shall not hear from my right hon. Friend that he is sailing away on that.

It is obvious, is it not, whatever the cause, that a serious situation has arisen in Bechuanaland? Things are getting out of hand, but we do not even know the facts. We do not know who is calling the meetings, or who has the right to call them. All we know is that the observers have been busy seeing people of the tribe. I submit to my right hon. Friend that we should know the facts, and it would be a useful thing if these observers had their terms of reference considerably enlarged so that they may take in their purview the whole state of affairs in Bechuanaland and advise the Government on the facts there and on the possible developments which may result from them.

I will not read the reports from "The Times" which have appeared yesterday and today, but from them it is obvious that even Tshekedi's opponents contemplate his return under certain circumstances: they say they will not let him return to the territory unless Seretse returns, too. Apparently, they have told Mr. Germond and Mr. Fraenkel, who is Seretse's lawyer on the spot. May I ask my right hon. Friend whether we in this House are to be dictated to by a tribe, or even more by, a faction in a tribe? I think we are entitled to an answer to that question. I fear that the observers, who seem to be admirably suited to the task for which they were selected, may have difficulty in carrying it out because of developments in the Protectorate since our debate.

I myself believe that there will be no peace in the Bamangwato unless Tshekedi and Seretse are both allowed to return. If we are to accept the view of the tribe on the question of Tshekedi's return—as I gather we are, and for that reason my right hon. Friend is arranging a kgotla specially to reach a decision on the part of the tribe—why not on Seretse's return also? After all, the tribe have given a clear decision—how come I am not prepared to say—that Seretse should return.

I believe that both these men will have to go back and that somebody should calla kgotla who is entitled to call it. It is by no means unusual under native law and custom to have a kgotla called by persons other than the chief. Rasebolai, who is in the direct line of succession, would be a perfectly good person to call it. I submit that that kgotla would be accepted by the tribe, and, at any rate, Tshekedi would be able to trust that kgotla, which would not be reversed, summoned, rehearsed and prompted by his enemies or even by the sinister Mr. Germond behind the scenes.

Mr. Gordon-Walker rose—

Mr. Mallalieu

If my right hon. Friend asks if that is the official that I was not attacking my reply is that I am still not attacking him, but I say that his presence in that place is sinister for the reasons that I have given.

Mr. Paget (Northampton)

is my hon. and learned Friend aware—and the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that when Mr. Germond was appointed, Tshekedi himself, I think, in writing, said how much he approved the appointment and that Mr. Germond was the best man for the job?

Mr. Mallalieu

I am aware of it, and it reinforces my opinion about how generous this man Tshekedi is. My proposals are that the terms of reference of the observers should be widened to enable them to take into account the affairs of the Protectorate into their purview and to advise the Secretary of State and this House how to extricate ourselves from the mess in which. I am afraid, we are in at the moment. I say further, that the return of Tshekedi and Seretse should be allowed, to give a stable basis for whatever should be decided in the future.

In the meantime, the Government must see that peace and good government are adhered to in the Protectorate, and that order is maintained. I strongly appeal to my right hon. Friend to take his courage in both hands. It is not just a question of his own reputation—though I would go a long way to save that—but it is a question of saving the country's reputation. Before lasting hurt is clone to our reputation for fair dealing and honesty in Africa he should take the steps I have ventured to press on him this evening.

11.6 p.m.

Sir Richard Acland (Gravesend)

Although I think the Leader of the Liberal Party might have made his case rather less lengthy, I am in complete agreement with him. I accept the plain, liberal argument that a man should be able to do what he likes and go where he likes unless he has committed an ascertainable crime. Nevertheless, I say that in the case of Tshekedi I can see a case, although I do not agree with it, which can be put on the other side. It is based largely on grounds of expediency.

All of us in politics are constantly having to compromise the ideal against the hard realities of many different circumstances, and I can understand how an honest man can have looked at the evidence three or four months ago and have concluded then—and still concludes now—that the return of Tshekedi might give rise to disturbances and upset, and that the liberal merits of the case must be set aside for the sake of preserving law and order.

It seems to me that the great publicity which has been given, rightly, to the case of Tshekedi has to some extent overshadowed the case of Seretse, on which the liberal arguments seem to apply as strongly as to Tshekedi, and I do not see any argument in expediency the other way. When first Seretse was banished we were not told the reasons, but were given to understand, arising from the history of three kgotlas at which rather differing results were reached in a short period of months, that the reason Seretse was excluded was because his presence at that time would have caused disunion, breach of civil peace, disorder, and all the rest.

On the reports which are coming both publicly and privately from the Bamangwato area now there does not seem to be a shred of doubt that on one question there is unanimity among the people, and that is their desire for the return of Seretse. For my part, strongly though I agree with the case which the right hon. and learned Gentleman put forward on behalf of Tshekedi, I can see some reason that there should be a little postponement of decision in his case, provided that Seretse were sent back at once.

I cannot see, on any of the evidence, that the return of Seretse would lead to a cooling down of the feelings of many people there at the present time, or would make it possible to explain to the people of the Bamangwato Tribe the true position, if, by any chance, they have been misled about it from any source. In a matter of weeks or, possibly, months—in an issue of this kind, two months would not be too long, I think—there could be a cooling down process, with Seretse back amongst his people again. In some such time as that, a cool decision could be taken, and the whole thing could be settled.

Now I want to ask my right hon. Friend one or two questions. Has he now any doubt at all about the unanimity of these people in favour of the return of Seretse? If he has any doubt, perhaps he would tell us on what ground that doubt rests. Would he then say what he is going to do to remove his own doubt one way or the other? Would it be a good plan to ask those three observers—well chosen observers, who are on the spot—to report to him as soon as they are able whether, in their view, the people of this tribe are unanimous about the return of Seretse?

If that is not a reasonable suggestion, perhaps he would put forward another of his own. But assuming that it is a reasonable suggestion, would he answer this final question? Suppose the observers are able to report in a short time unanimously that they are convinced that the whole of the people want Seretse to go back, could he go back? if not, why not?

Or is that a question whose answer is so secret that we cannot be given it? If so, it is a secret to which all of us know the answer. Is it because of the opinion of Malan and his supporters in South Africa? If it is I really think that, in the light of the Prime Minister's speech on foreign affairs yesterday, the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations ought to learn that we are living in a different century from that which, perhaps, he thinks.

New forces are arising of all kinds, and some of the forces arising in Africa, in all parts, will, in the long run, prove themselves infinitely stronger than any forces which are represented by Malan. Quite apart from Liberal principles, or any other arguments which can be adduced from morality, the sheer arguments induced by expediency would urge that we put ourselves clearly and unequivocally on the side of the rising forces and not on the side of the waning forces in the African Continent.

11.14 p.m.

Mr. Bing (Hornchurch)

I rise to say only a few words in support of what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland). What we are really concerned with is the future of Africa. There is no doubt that to the continued future of the British Commonwealth of Nations the African position is absolutely essential, and this matter really arises, not because there is not now, or is not going to be, a decision by a kgotla, but because originally, for some reason or another which we have still to learn, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations did not see fit to honour the decision of the first kgotla.

If Tshekedi has committed any offence, in the eyes of the people of Bechuanaland it is that he agreed with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. That is the accusation against him, that he and the Secretary of State agreed that Seretse was not the proper person possibly to be chief of the tribe. Clearly, that is now what is being held against him.

If we are to look at all this again is it not time that we expressed what we think about it? The other day the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) gave us a lecture about the freedom of the individual, saying that his party could never in any circumstances tolerate the banishment of anybody. They have been sitting there for years and years listening to me telling them about the same kind of thing happening in the United Kingdom. [An HON. MEMBER: "In Northern Ireland."] Exactly. For over 30 years the right hon. Gentleman's party have practised the exclusion order. For example, one of the best known trade unionists was kept from his own home, and yet they get up here and say that is just the very thing that they will not tolerate. But that is not what we are discussing tonight. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Yes, but it is an important principle.

The danger we are in about both Seretse and Tshekedi is that we give the impression, whether rightly or wrongly, that we are really seeking in Africa the sympathy of those people who are most opposed to equality for the Africans.

I am not one of those who think, as I know many hon. Members opposite honestly do, that freedom is best defended by its worst enemies. I do not think, for example, we get peace when we are defending it with Nazi generals or Franco Spain. I do not think that the freedom of Africa and the ordinary African can best be defended by those who deny it to them. Therefore, if we are thinking in terms of African defence—and perhaps that is what is at the back of the mind of my right hon. Friend— we should not make any suggestion of racial intolerance to anyone in order that we can be given a few troops.

I now come to the actual details of the position. What are we to do in this position? Perhaps my right hon. Friend will tell us, when he comes to deal with the kgotla, who is to preside at it. That is an important point. It is rather like the Conservative Conference. They do not have a vote. The leader determines what everybody is thinking after the meeting is over. I see that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) agrees with me.

Therefore, it is of some importance that they find who is the right person to be the leader. I feel that in this gathering my right hon. Friend should say who is to preside. This is a question which might, for instance, be decided or discussed by the African Advisory Committee. There exists in Bechuanaland such a committee which meets about once a year and it is an admirable body to which we could refer this vital question. Let us have an answer on that point.

There is a second dangerous point to which I would refer. My right hon. Friend will have noticed that the view is now growing that it is possible for the kgotla to decide the banishment of anybody. As I understand the news that is now coming through, it seems that some of the opponents of Tshekedi want to banish some of his supporters as well. My right hon. Friend said that sometimes harm is done by debates in the House, but great harm would be done if we did not make it clear that that is not a point which the Government, or anyone else in this House, would stand for.

What is to happen if no kgotla is summoned? May I just make one suggestion to my right hon. Friend? If no kgotla is summoned why cannot we go back to the recent suggestion which some hon. Members put forward in the recent debate, namely, that there should be a judicial inquiry? The only reason why Tshekedi can be banished without a judicial inquiry is, that to make the position easier he resigned from his regency. The Ordinance of, I think, 1944 or 1943, provides that no chief may be banished unless there is a judicial inquiry. It is only possible to banish Tshekedi under the 1907 Proclamation because he said that he would make the position easier by resigning.

Can I suggest, finally, that if the right hon. Gentleman's conception of the kgotla does not work out he ought not to take further advantage of so generous an act by one who has, whether one agrees with his policy or not, served this country and Africa very well for a long period, and that he should be given that judicial inquiry to which he would have been entitled if he had stood to his rights and had not acted with the intention of making the position easier for this country and everyone concerned.

11.22 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Gordon-Walker)

I should like to start, if I may, with a reference to the attack which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) said he did not make on some of the officials present, particularly one whom he mentioned by name. I think that his distinction between attacking and not attacking is a subtle one. My hon. and learned Friend made an attack upon Mr. Germond, the District Commissioner, who is an able and impartial official. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), has pointed out that when Mr. Germond was appointed Tshekedi Khama went out of his way to tell the High Commissioner how glad he was about the appointment, and to say that Mr. Germond was as good a choice as could be found. It may well be, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brigg says, that Tshekedi Khama was generous, but also that Mr. Germond is an impartial and good official. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."]

There has been a certain tendency in some quarters during this controversy to attribute disreputable motives to and to cast aspersions upon officials. There was, I thought, a deplorable example of this during the week-end in a speech by Mr. Fothergill, President of the Liberal Party, who said, according to Press reports, that there was a sinister background to these disorders. He said that there was more than a suspicion that police and officials had not dealt with the disorders sufficiently promptly and firmly. There was a clear indication in what he said, as reported, that officials had deliberately refrained from suppressing disorder, and restoring order.

Mr. Fothergill did not cite a tittle of evidence. If what he said is correctly reported, it seems to me to contain innuendoes which are irresponsible and unprincipled. I take it that, as President of the Liberal Party he was speaking for the Liberal Party. He made these irresponsible allegations. I hope that the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) will either repudiate what has been stated, or else tell us that Mr. Fothergill has been misrepresented in this report. Otherwise, we must take it that Mr. Fothergill was speaking for the party when he said that disorder had not been suppressed properly nor quickly enough.

I should like next, as there is no answer to that point, to say, in reply to questions put to me about the proposed kgotla, that I have always said—and said from the beginning of this controversy—that it was our intention to invite the tribe to hold one more kgotla to determine the tribal attitude to the return of Tshekedi as a private person. I would remind hon. Members that I have always made it clear that we would invite the tribe to do this. But, although we can invite the tribe to hold a kgotla, and bring argument to bear, it is not within our power to compel people to attend a meeting anywhere. The second thing is that I said that the exclusion order would not, in any way, act as a bar to Tshekedi's attendance.

If one is to invite a tribe to hold a kgotla, it is necessary to put the invitation to them and necessary, therefore, to have preliminary meetings. It also seems to me to be common sense that, where there are parties in sharp dispute and controversy, it is very wise to try to get everybody together and have separate meetings in the first place; to get the good will and co-operation necessary if there is to be a kgotla. In any case, there are always preliminary meetings before the calling of great and formal kgotlas. Therefore, I think there should be preliminary meetings at which the arrangements for this kgotla must be discussed, and the invitation to the tribe could then be put to the people.

In reply to the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler), the observers are there as observers; they are men of distinction, but have no power to make decisions. That, of course, rests with the Government. But having sent men of this distinction, one will await their views before coming to decisions, and there is no question at all of sheltering behind them nor of giving them constitutional position. I talked with them before they left this country, and they gave me their assurances that they would use their best influences to urge upon the tribe certain lines of action for the holding of this kgotla.

First, my invitation to hold the kgotla will be put to the tribe and this, of course, will be strongly supported by our officers there; the observers have promised their full influence in pressing upon the tribe the wisdom of accepting this invitation.

Mr. Beresford Craddock (Spelthorne)

I am sorry to intervene, but is not the difficulty this? Who is to call this kgotla? In tribal law, the only person who can legally summon a kgotla is the recognised chief and he, in this case, does not exist at the moment.

Mr. Gordon-Walker

I will come to that point, but there is provision for the High Commissioner to appoint any fit and proper person to call, and preside over, a kgotla. There is the difficulty of native custom, but it is to be made clear to the tribe that Tshekedi has renounced the Chieftainship. This has been made clear again and again. Also, the Government strongly desire that Tshekedi should be present both at the kgotla and at these preliminary meetings to make arrangements for the kgotla. But I repeat, while I can invite and urge people to attend meetings I have, and this House has, no power to compel people to attend meetings. Further, there should be a reasonable and customary interval between the calling and holding of the kgotla.

I have heard from the observers that there are also going on discussions between them and the followers of Tshekedi Khama. I am sorry that Tshekedi Khama—he is perfectly entitled so to decide—was not there himself to take part in these discussions. I did suggest to him in the letter the right hon. and learned Gentleman read out that it would be wise, in his own interests, to arrive there about the same time as the observers, and I did make arrangements for him to fly there. But he chose to go later. Therefore, he himself cannot be present at the moment in the discussions with the observers. But they are having discussions with his main supporters and followers. I am glad to say that Tshekedi Khama is going out there and will be leaving, I understand, on 2nd August. We shall also suggest—and my officers and observers—

Mr. C. Davies

I take it that the right hon. Gentleman knows he is only going to the Territory where he is permitted to go.

Mr. Gordon-Walker

Yes, I know that, and I shall be coming to that point.

We shall also suggest—and my officers and the observers have agreed to support it—that it is very important that there should be an impartial person as president. It is very difficult to give an exact answer according to native law and custom as to who should preside in this particular case, because native law and custom does not provide that it is necessary for the president of a kgotla to be impartial. It is very important that he should in this case be impartial, and we shall suggest that it might well be the right solution in these circumstances for everybody to agree on some prominent person from a neighbouring tribe, who should come from outside.

Also, we are getting together a panel of knowledgeable elders in the field of native law and custom of neighbouring tribes who will be available to be consulted by the observers on any points they wish to consult them about, so that they will have some sources as well as people in the Bamangwato. Reserve whom they can consult about points of native law and custom if they so wish.

On the question of the exclusion order, to which the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden and others referred, I have always said—and said from the very beginning in the first debate on this, and have repeated—that the exclusion order will not act as a bar to Tshekedi Khama attending at the kgotla. It has been a very difficult matter on which to reach a right decision. The service of the exclusion order is, in my judgment, necessary to preserve the status quo in a situation of very great difficulty and tension. The present policy of the Government—which is well known and well established—is the policy laid down in the White Paper, that both Tshekedi Khama and Seretse Khama should be excluded.

To depart in a major way from this known, and publicly known, policy while the whole question of the holding of the kgotla and the arrangements for it are being discussed would be to run the risk of very greatly confusing the issue and bringing a very disturbing new factor into the situation, and causing misunderstanding. The reports that have been published in the Press and that have reached me from the Reserve, show that there is great danger that, if we departed in this major respect from established policy and from the status quo it would lead to very grave misunderstandings which would prejudice and make more difficult to achieve the end we have in mind, namely, that there should be a kgotla which Tshekedi Khama and his followers should attend, and would weaken the chance of the solution we want.

I have both written to Tshekedi Khama and told him that when the exclusion order is served on him he will, at the same time, be given a letter which will tell him that directly the arrangements for the kgotla have been made, the order will be waived to permit his entry during the period between then and the holding of the kgotla. I have also pointed out to him that the Administration must reserve the right to take what steps it deems right and proper to prevent any breach of the peace, but that the exclusion order shall not act in any way as a bar upon his entry into the tribe between the date of the decision to hold the kgotla and the holding of the kgotla.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden raised the question whether this was the right way of doing things, and whether it did not prejudice the whole case. I think that the answer to that is that if the issue of the return of Tshekedi Khama is raised—it was made a question the other day; it is now an issue—it is a matter suited for settlement by a kgotla and suited for settlement only by a kgotla—

Mr. C. Davies

Why?

Mr. Gordon-Walker

I am just coming to that, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me to continue what I have to say.

The question at issue is the right of certain people to belong to and reside in a tribe when it has been alleged that they have severed their connection with the tribe. That is the question at issue, and it is a complicated question of native law and custom, and there is a well-established procedure for discussing and settling these problems when they arise. They have arisen not only in this connection; they have arisen from time to time in the past.

People have severed, or have been alleged to have severed their connection with a tribe and then have wished to come back. The proper way, the only way by native law and custom of settling this issue when it has been raised is by proper discussion in a kgotla. It is not easy in this instance to get a kgotla, but if this issue is raised, there is no other way of settling it in accord with native law and custom.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brigg asked whether we would be dictated to by the tribe in these matters. Of course, we are not dictated to by the tribe, and any decision that is taken' by the kgotla in this is only evidence on which we work. But I must say to him that, equally, we cannot dictate by long-distance decrees to these people about how exactly they shall settle their own matters of native law and custom.

Mr. Butler

In that case, would the right hon. Gentleman tell us why he took the dramatic decision to ban Tshekedi?

Mr. Gordon-Walker

Tshekedi Khama?

Mr. Butler

Yes.

Mr. Gordon-Walker

I gave long reasons in my speech the other day why that was done. I can repeat them all if the right hon. Gentleman wishes. What I was saying was that the method by which these things can be settled cannot be by long-distance decrees from us that they must not do it by a kgotla, in this way or in that way—

Mr. C. Davies rose—

Mr. Gordon-Walker

The method by which these things are settled is a well established and normal procedure, and if this issue is raised, as it has been, there is no proper way in accord with native law and custom to settle it other then by a kgotla.

Mr. Davies

But that is not what was said in this White Paper. May I read it to the right hon. Gentleman, so that he may know? His Majesty's Government must, however, state categorically that the judicial inquiry unanimously advised against the recognition of Seretse … It further advised that Tshekedi should not be permitted to return to the Reserve. On that, and that alone, the right hon. Gentleman acted—no kgotla, no anything.

Hon. Members

Long distance.

Mr. Gordon-Walker

The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not quite taken the point I am trying to make. That judicial inquiry was on a judicial matter, the question of a disputed chieftainship. This is a quite different matter. This is the question of the right of certain people to belong to and reside in a tribe when it is alleged that they have severed their connection with it. That is the issue involved. Many people in the tribe say that Tshekedi Khama and some of his followers severed their connection with the tribe when they went to a neighbouring people and made declarations about it and so forth. When the question of their return to their original tribe is raised, as it has been in this case, there is no way but a kgotla to settle it.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brigg and my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland) asked, in effect, that the terms of reference of the observers should be extended and widened to include the whole of the problems that could be at issue. I respectfully suggest that it would be very wrong to open out all those major issues at this time.

I ask hon. and right hon. Members to remember how this particular question arose. When we had the debate a few weeks ago there was a Motion before the House on one question: the question of Tshekedi Khama's return to the Reserve. There was no other question before the House—not of Seretse Khama's return, not of whether there should be a judicial inquiry or not. There was this one question at issue: whether Tshekedi Khama should return to the tribe.

I stated the Government case to justify our policy and I based it very largely on our views of the attitude and the probable reactions of the tribe if Tshekedi Khama were to return. That evidence of the views of the tribe was questioned in the House on many sides, and I therefore made an offer on behalf of the Government that we should invite a further kgotla, not to decide the issue—I would not shelter behind the kgotla any more than I would shelter behind the observers—but to verify, check and test the evidence, or otherwise if the evidence proves not to have been as we said it was.

Therefore, since that debate in the House, the whole of these proceedings has been on one question that had been raised: namely, the tribe's attitude to Tshekedi Khama's return as a private person, having renounced the chieftainship. It has been made clear to the tribe, to both parties, and to all peoples in the tribe, that this is the one issue to be put to the tribe. It is understood by the observers as being the matter on which they are to report the views of the tribe: this one question of the attitude of the tribe to Tshekedi Khama's return as a private person.

Sir R. Acland

My right hon. Friend is answering the case made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) for widening the terms of reference of the three observers to cover the whole dispute. My right hon. Friend couples me with that suggestion, but my point was a rather different one. I only suggested that if my right hon. Friend had any doubt himself as to the unanimity of the tribe about Seretse, he might also ask the observers not to cover the whole field, but simply to report to him on that one narrow point. Would my right hon. Friend answer that?

Mr. Gordon-Walker

I do not think it would be one narrow point. It would be a very considerable enlargement.

Sir R. Acland

No. It is quite a narrow point.

Mr. Gordon-Walker

It would not "be a narrow point. It would raise a large point, and—

Sir R. Acland

It is a question of facts.

Mr. Gordon-Walker

It would be a shift from the one question on which we have been concentrating, on which the observers agree—

Sir R. Acland

That question only arises—

Hon. Members

Order.

Mr. Gordon-Walker

—the observers have agreed that it is right and proper that they should report. It would be, I suggest, a very grave mistake to change our attitude once again. There has been a lot of change, a lot of doubt, and a lot of postponement and delay in this matter, and constant changes and delays and doubts of this sort inevitably undermine the Administration, which has been under great strain in these circumstances. It would be a very great mistake to change on this very important matter, on which the position of Parliament and of the Government has been made entirely clear to everybody concerned, including the people in the tribe.

Sir R. Acland

The possibility of asking these three observers to give their views about the tribe's opinion on Seretse only arises if my right hon. Friend has any doubts about that. Has he any doubts about it?

Mr. Gordon-Walker

I can only restate the reasons I have given why I think it would be very unwise to change again our mind and extend the terms of reference that have been put to the observers.

I must remind hon. Members that in the last few weeks, as a result of all these developments, there has been a very great check to good government and constitutional progress in this tribe, and progress towards the end of direct rule. Our great objective in this whole matter is to get away from direct rule. We were making, as I told the House, reasonably good progress towards that end. It has been rudely interrupted and set back, and I hope there will not now be any further doubts, delays, and changes in attitude and policy in this matter.

I hope that we can get this question settled one way or the other and that the tribe can be allowed to get back to a steady development towards the end of direct rule and towards constitutional progress. The observers are now on the spot. This is a new factor in the situation. The observers are three men on whom we can count for independent views and reports. They certainly will not make decisions, but their advice will be of great value. Their function is to help, and they have agreed to use the full weight of their influence to try and get wise decisions from the tribe and all parties on the procedure for holding this kgotla. Their function is to report on this one question of the attiude of the tribe regarding Tshekedi Khama's return as a private person.

I can assure the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden that I realise the deep feelings in this matter and that I share with him the liberal feelings he spoke about, which are of the greatest importance. It was only, as I explained earlier, after grave doubt and great reluctance that I and the Government came to the conclusion that this was one of the cases where the rights of one man had to give way. I hope that the House will agree that things should be left, anyhow at this very critical moment, where they are, with the observers out there and with discussions going on with the various parties to this dispute, and that we should rely on the good offices of the observers and of our officials there.

Mr. Bowen (Cardigan)

Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the position of the return of Seretse Khama? He said nothing about that.

Mr. Gordon-Walker

I explained that this whole matter had arisen out of a debate about the return of Tshekedi Khama. There was a Motion before the House in precise terms. That is what this case has arisen from. We took up an attitude which has been made public to the tribe and everybody else, that we wanted an answer on this one question and I gave reasons why I am sure it would be most unwise to change again on this point or to widen out further issues. We ought to get an answer on this one question and let the tribe get on with good progress constitutionally.

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper (Middlesbrough, West)

I think my right hon. Friend based his whole argument in the first debate on the question of this man, if he returned, possibly causing trouble. Could he say what new principle of democratic socialism it is, which may be playing into the hands of the most reactionary influences in South Africa, which causes him to prevent men going back to the territories to which they belong? Is he going to apply this same principle to other men in West Africa and West Indies, such as Bustamante, Manley, Geary, Azikuwi and Nkrumah?

Mr. R. A. Butler

Could the right hon. Gentleman answer one of the major points which was raised in my speech, namely, whether the upsets which have occurred have amounted, in many cases, to disorder and whether the events which have occurred before the summoning of the kgotla have prejudged the case of Tshekedi Khama?

Mr. Gordon-Walker

I do not think it is possible in a case like this for this issue to be approached by the tribe with the impartiality of judges. There has been a great deal of excitement and views have been taken. Once this issue was raised—and it was raised by the two Opposition parties—it had to be settled and there is no other way of settling it but by a kgotla. Those who raised this issue must accept the responsibility for the circumstances in which only one possible remedy can be used.