KENYA (SITUATION) (Hansard, 11 June 1953)

§ 67. Mr. HECTOR HUGHES
TO ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the present conditions in Kenya.

§ The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Oliver Lyttelton)
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I will now reply to Question 67.
The situation in Kenya has greatly changed since I last reported to the House. The favourable features outweigh the unfavourable. The latest advices which I have received from the Governor show that the tendencies which I observed when I was there are still maintained. First, the flood of confessions which began a few weeks ago has continued. Increasing numbers of Kikuyu are coming down upon the side of the Government and are expressing their confidence in it.
Secondly, the flow of information from the Kikuyu to the police has greatly increased.
Thirdly, the Kikuyu Home Guard is building up rapidly and in some districts, notably in Nyeri, Fort Hall and Kiambu the necessary numbers have already volunteered. In these districts the Government of Kenya do not intend to ask for further recruits but rather to concentrate upon training.
The House will remember that Colonel Morecombe, lately in command of the Suffolks who had a long experience in Malaya, was appointed in the middle of May to the General Staff in Kenya with special responsibilities for the Home Guard.
Lastly, the Mau Mau movement has not spread—significantly—into other tribes, although some bad characters from Nairobi have been creating trouble on the fringes of the Meru and Embu country. In the Rift Valley Province the improvement in the situation is maintained and activities by the gangs are only on a small scale.
Such are the favourable features. The unfavourable are that the movement of between 50,000 and 60,000 Kikuyu from 454 farms back into the Reserves has swollen the size of the gangs in the fringes of the forests. This is not a disadvantage when they can be engaged by police and troops, but although they have not got many firearms their increased size does increase the danger both to the Home Guard and to the loyal population, until we can root them out. Again this emphasises the need for improving the training and equipment of the Home Guard to which I have referred. This is being carried out with great energy.
I wish to make clear the extent to which this is a struggle within the Kikuyu tribe itself between the loyal forces on the side of peace and order and the forces of murder, arson and savagery. This is shown by the fact that since the emergency began, 411 Africans have been killed by the Mau Mau, 17 Europeans and four Asians. This gives the lie on the one hand to those who claim that this is a struggle between black and white, and on the other to those who would have us believe that the Kikuyu tribe as a whole is ranged against the Government.
Many attacks have been made against the Kikuyu Home Guard. Nevertheless, they have resisted them with great steadfastness and frequent success, and I take this opportunity of paying the tribute due to brave men. Upon the strong request of the Asian community, conscription for Asians has been introduced.
I told the Press in Nairobi when I left that I regard the present as a phase of decision and the appointment of General Erskine to be in charge of the operations against the Mau Mau is to bring the emergency to an end as quickly as possible.
Turning to political events, the Kenya African Union has been proscribed. Many members of the Kenya African Union are, of course, loyal citizens, but it had been found in the course of the Kenyatta trial that K.A.U. was being used as a cover for the organisation of Mau Mau. As an illustration, two of the most wanted terrorists in Kenya, Dedan Kimathi and Stanley Mathenge are both K.A.U. members. Kimathi was secretary of the Rumuruti Thomson's Falls branch and Mathenge a member of Nyeri branch.

§ Mr. S. Silverman
On a point of order. Are not the matters with which the right hon. Gentleman is now dealing sub judice 455 in the Court of Appeal in Kenya? If they are, has he any right to refer to them in this highly tendentious way?

§ Mr. Speaker
I am not aware that the two men named here are the subject of judicial proceedings. Perhaps the Secretary of State will tell me?

§ Mr. Lyttelton
Not that I know of. [An HON. MEMBER: "You say they are guilty."] Neither of these men has been arrested.

§ Mr. Anthony Greenwood
Of what are they guilty?

§ Mr. Silverman
It is, of course, perfectly true that the persons mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman by name are not, as far as one knows, so far people against whom actual specific charges have been made. Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned them in connection with the Kenya African Union and with issues which were strenuously contested in the trial of Kenyatta and which are still under appeal in that case. Surely the doctrine we have always most strenuously kept to, that we shall not make politically prejudicial statements about matters which are at the moment under inquiry by the criminal courts, is binding as much on Ministers of the Crown as upon anyone else?

§ Mr. Speaker
I understand that Kenyatta's conviction is subject to appeal at the moment to the Supreme Court, but I do not think anything I have heard so far could possibly prejudice the proper hearing of the appeal of Kenyatta.

§ Mr. Brockway
Further to that point of order—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—I am sorry, but this is a very important principle. The Secretary of State for the Colonies has referred to individuals and to evidence which has been given in the Kenyatta trial. Kenyatta and his colleagues have appealed to the Supreme Court and their case is to be heard in the Supreme Court. Surely it is out of order in this House for statements to be made about evidence in that trial referring to two individuals before the case has gone to the Supreme Court?

§ Mr. Paget
Further to that point of order. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Kenyatta trial had shown—I think that is the word he used—that the 456 Kenya African Union was being used as a front by Mau Mau and that the Kenya African Union had been involved in the organisation of Mau Mau. There were certainly no two issues in the Kenyatta trial which were more strenuously contested than those two. I would therefore respectfully submit that to make, as statements of fact by a Minister of the Crown, contentions in regard to a case under appeal must prejudice that trial.

§ Mr. Lyttelton
In my submission the names of these two men I have mentioned are in connection with the proscription of K.A.U. and nothing in the proscription of K.A.U. is under any judicial inquiry at this moment.

§ Mr. Silverman
The right hon. Gentleman, in the course of what he was saying when I ventured to interrupt, referred specifically to what evidence in the Kenyatta trial had shown. The evidence in the Kenyatta trial to which he referred was strenuously disputed at the time and its validity must be one of the issues with which the Supreme Court is concerned, and quite clearly it is sub judice.

§ Mr. J. Griffiths
May I ask the Secretary of State if he will read the passage again? I happen to have a copy, through his courtesy, and it refers to the trial of Jomo Kenyatta. An appeal is pending, and therefore it is sub judice. The Secretary of State went on to name two persons. I think the relevant point is that it might be construed that the evidence in the Kenyatta trial, which is sub judice, is being connected, perhaps advertently or inadvertently, with the names of the two men who, I gather, are wanted and may come to trial. Does that constitute a reference to a pending trial which ought not to be made?

§ Mr. Speaker
I have given careful consideration to this point in the short time at my disposal, and the view I at present have is that it is undesirable to say anything about the man who is to have his appeal heard or anything that might prejudice his case. The way I have read the statement—I have just looked at it again—is that, with regard to the two men named by the right hon. Gentleman, I think the words used in the statement are too remote from the issue of the Kenyatta trial to prejudice it, and that I must rule.

§ Mr. H. Morrison
This is a point of some importance. May I put it to you, Sir, that the essential point is this? The man on trial is, as I understand it, the secretary of the Union referred to, and in the course of the proceedings to which the Secretary of State has referred it has been proved, the Secretary of State is arguing, through the experience of these two men that the Union has intimate connection with the Mau Mau movement.
I am not arguing whether that is right or wrong, but surely if the Secretary of State is to argue that case it is bound to prejudice the trial of the man who is appealing to the Supreme Court, because his argument is that it is already proved that the Union of which this man is the secretary is involved in close association, and indeed conspiracies, with Mau Mau. In those circumstances, I submit to you, Sir, and to the Secretary of State, that it is unwise to quote from evidence of proceedings in the court below, which is what the right hon. Gentleman is doing, when an appeal is pending to the Supreme Court. That is quite apart from the names of these two men.

§ Mr. Speaker
The words used by the right hon. Gentleman were, I think, to the effect that this Union was being used as a cover by some Mau Mau sympathisers, but he prefaced that by saying that there were many loyal Africans who were also members of the Union—I think he said so—and therefore I do not think that anything which the right hon. Gentleman has said so far would carry the necessary conclusion that membership of the Union was connected with any criminal conspiracy. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear these matters in mind and to be careful as to what he does say.

§ Mr. Morrison
If I may say so, I appreciate your point, Mr. Speaker, but that does not invalidate my point. I admit that the Secretary of State said that there were many loyal people in this organisation, but he did make implications about the organisation itself, which may be right or not. In fact he made allegations—they may be right or wrong —and the person who is going to appeal to the Supreme Court is apparently the chief officer of that organisation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Was."] Well, he was, and presumably he is being tried somewhat in 458 that capacity—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] —yes, somewhat, because surely it is alleged it is so, as it is argued that the organisation was being used for these purposes. I submit with great respect— [Interruption.] The Prime Minister is off the point as usual. If he wants to say anything he had better say it properly and not mumble. I submit that this is a specific reference to the proceedings in the court below which does affect the appeal of the man to the Supreme Court, and that the Secretary of State ought not to pursue that line of statement.

§ Mr. J. Griffiths
May I read to you, Mr. Speaker, the words used, and ask you whether these words are about the case which is sub judice or not? They are: it has been found in the course of the Ken-yatta trial that K.A.U. was being used as a cover for the organisation of Mau Mau. Since there is an appeal pending in this case, would it be right to say at this stage that anything has been found out in the Kenyatta trial?

§ Mr. Bowles
If it is out of order to refer to a matter which is sub judice, surely it is more out of order to take action of proscription arising out of evidence given at that trial.

§ Mr. Speaker
The action of proscription is not a matter for me.
It seems to me, looking at the matter again, that the question which the court in Kenya will have to decide on appeal is whether this man Kenyatta was an organiser or furtherer of the schemes of Mau Mau; that is in question. The statement by the Colonial Secretary, so far as he has gone, says that some members of the African Union were being used as cover, or the Union was being used as cover by some members of the Mau Mau organisation or sympathisers. I still think that that would leave the court absolutely unprejudiced when it comes to—[Interruption.] Order. I must be heard. I still think that that would leave the court absolutely unprejudiced when it comes to decide whether the man Kenyatta, who is not mentioned in this statement except to identify the trial mentioned, is guilty or innocent.

§ Mr. Griffiths
May I, with respect, ask whether to use the words that something has been found in a trial upon which an 459 appeal is pending are words that can be used without prejudice to further appeal?

§ Mr. Speaker
In answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question, I would say that if something had been quoted from the trial which affected Kenyatta, he would be perfectly right, but there were two other men mentioned.

§ Mr. S. Silverman
May I put this point? The principal question which the Supreme Court will have to decide in the appeal now pending is undoubtedly the question which you, Mr. Speaker, posed just now; namely, whether Kenyatta is guilty or not guilty of whatever charges have been brought against him. In considering that question, it is plain that the High Court will have to review the evidence given in the court below, and will have to form some opinion one way or the other as to the value and credibility of that evidence. The right hon. Gentleman said that some members of this Union were loyal but that the Union was used as a cover for the very conspiracy with which Kenyatta is charged; and in order to make that point he specifically relied, in so many words, upon evidence which had been given in the Kenyatta trial. In other words, he expressly prejudged the very question which alone could help the Supreme Court to decide whether the conviction is to be supported or not supported. With great respect, I submit that a clearer statement during a pending trial which ought not be made has never been the subject of submissions to you in this House.

§ Mr. Alport
Further to that point of order. Surely this point of order would have substance only if one of the charges to be considered by the Supreme Court was the association of Jomo Kenyatta with the Kenya African Union. My information is that in fact that has never been one of the charges, so surely the point of order has no substance at all.

§ Mr. Lyttelton
Before I go on with my statement, 1 will just mention that I am extremely careful about these matters. I submitted the words to my legal advisers, who said that in no case could they be regarded as referring to anything sub judice. Perhaps I had better begin again.
Many Members of the Kenya African Union are, of course, loyal citizens, but it had been found in the course of the 460 Kenyatta trial that K.A.U. was being used as a cover for the organisation of Mau Mau.

§ Mr. Silverman
On a point of order. I have submitted this to you before, Mr. Speaker, and I submit it again. The last words which the right hon. Gentleman has just used are words which cannot be permitted in this House during the course of a criminal trial.

§ The Prime Minister
Further to that point of order. May I ask whether you have not already ruled on this specific question?

§ Mr. Bevan
On a point of order. It is extremely important, although perhaps hon. Members on the other side of the House do not seem to think so, that the people for whom we are responsible in Africa should feel that justice is being done to one of their number. That, surely, is the important consideration. As I understand the position, it might go out from the House today that language has been used by the right hon. Gentleman that might prejudice Kenyatta's appeal.

§ The Prime Minister
Mr. Speaker has ruled on that point of order.

§ Mr. Bevan
May I finish without the Prime Minister's interference? As far as one can gather from the statement of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, his decision to proscribe the organisation does not rest alone upon what he alleges was revealed at the trial. There is no reason why he could not expunge that part from his statement and rest whatever case he has for proscription on the other facts. Even if Mr. Speaker has ruled that it is not entirely out of order, it is sufficiently doubtful for the right hon. Gentleman to drop it. When is he going to stop being so flat-footed?

§ Mr. Brockway
Further to that point of order. I submit that the issue now before us is of tremendous importance to the confidence in this House of 60 million Africans in the British Colonies. The point I want to submit is that one of the charges against Kenyatta was that he had been chairman of the Kenya African Union and evidence was submitted that that organisation had been used as a cover for Mau Mau. The right hon. Gentleman, while the appeal is still pending, uses in this House the phrase 461 that evidence had been found in the course of the trial that the Kenya African Union had been so used as a cover.
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that despite the high office which the right hon. Gentleman holds, you, as Mr. Speaker, responsible to the whole House and the traditions of the House, ought to rule that—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am submitting it to you—only submitting. I submit that, bearing in mind the traditions of this House and his responsibility to this House, the right hon. Gentleman ought not to have used the phrase while this case is sub judice and that that position should be made clear to the House and to the population of Africa.

§ The Prime Minister
May I venture to repeat the question I have already asked, namely, is it not an abuse of the practice of the House to repeat again points of order on which a detailed Ruling has already been given by the Chair?

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I think we ought to proceed. The position, as I see it, is that the statement says that it has been found in the course of the Kenyatta trial that the Union was being used as a cover for the organisation of Mau Mau. That is the statement. That is putting it at its worst.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Although I must say that I do not like any references to any trials in progress, that still leaves quite open the question whether Kenyatta was using the Union as a cover. This is a very large organisation. Some of them are loyal and some of them are not. I think that it would be better if in future in the rest of the statement all reference to Kenyatta and his trial were omitted.

§ Mr. Griffiths
I accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you whether, since an appeal is pending, you will consider whether it is appropriate that no entry of this kind should go in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

§ Mr. Speaker
I do not think that I can exercise a censorship of that character.

§ Mr. Lyttelton
As an illustration, two of the most wanted terrorists in Kenya, 462 Dedan Kimathi and Stanley Mathenge, are both K.A.U. members. Kimathi was secretary of the Rumuruti Thomson's Falls Branch and Mathenge a member of Nyeri Branch. There can be no doubt that the subversive Kikuyu Central Association, which was proscribed in 1939, infiltrated into the Kenya African Union shortly after its establishment, and by 1947 had dominated its members and corrupted its purposes.

§ Mr. Speaker
Hon. Members have had my Ruling on this matter. I hope that they will accept it.

§ Mr. Brockway
In view of your request to the right hon. Gentleman that he should not proceed to make this reference and as his reference was introduced by the phrase, "As an illustration," would you request the right hon. Gentleman to stop reading a statement which may prejudice the case in the Supreme Court?

§ Mr. Paget
Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether you followed the Kenyatta trial, but the issue in that trial was that the prosecution said that the African Union had been infiltrated by the old proscribed Kikuyu society and was in fact an unlawful organisation engaged upon an unlawful conspiracy. That was the whole issue. There was no question of Kenyatta admitting that he was president and concerned with the African Union. The issue was whether the activities of that Union were lawful or unlawful. The other point which was the whole issue in the trial is the point which the right hon. Gentleman has raised and, in spite of your warning, he went on and made it much worse than it was before.

§ Mr. S. Silverman
May I submit——

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. One at a time. Mr. Silverman.

§ Mr. Silverman
I desire to submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the right hon. Gentleman's last two or three sentences were nothing less than a defiance of the Ruling we have had from the Chair. What he said, if I may repeat it for the purpose of my submission only, was that an organisation which had long ago been declared to be a subversive organisation had first of all infiltrated into the African 463 Union and now dominated it. The question whether that is true or not was the chief issue at the trial of Kenyatta, and will be the chief contested matter in the appeal. I submit to you, with diffidence but nevertheless with conviction, that what the right hon. Gentleman is now doing is pursuing a course deliberately designed to interfere with the course of justice in this trial, and that you, Sir, ought to restrain him.

§ Mr. Alport
May I ask for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, on whether the House has a right to hear from a Minister of the Crown the reason for taking action against a particular association, and if, in making that statement, a Minister is not entitled to give reasons, to the best of his ability, for this decision of Government policy?

§ Mr. Speaker
There is here a slight conflict. It is quite true that a Minister is entitled to give reasons; on the other hand, the House is always very jealous of anything being said in the House which might prejudice a fair trial. So far, I do not think anything has been said that will, and I think that if the right hon. Gentleman would begin again with the sentence beginning— More recently the detention of Odede, we shall be free from this difficulty.

§ Mr. Lyttelton
May I add that Kenyatta is not being tried for being a member of the Kenya African Union?
More recently the detention of Odede, who had become the President of the K.A.U., was necessary because he was implicated in trying to organise Mau Mau in the Nyanza Province.
It is not, of course, our wish to prevent the expression of legitimate political opinion by Africans. We must be sure, however, that ostensibly political bodies are not used as instruments for spreading disorder and terror by a small part of one tribe. The best course is, I think, to build on those local associations which have shown that they can be trusted to pursue the interests of their people by legitimate means. The Kenya Government will do all that it can to help along these lines.
I discussed the matter of public meetings with the Governor while I was in 464 Kenya and we agreed upon a statement which he has now issued. Here it is:—
"In order to allay any misunderstanding that may exist, the Government wishes to make clear its attitude on holding of meetings by African members of the Legislative Council. The Government will welcome the calling of meetings by African members of the Legislative Council to address their constituents in support of law and order. The same applies to meetings addressed by other Africans who are staunch supporters of law and order. On account of security reasons, it will be necessary for those arranging meetings to obtain the consent of the District Commissioner and the Police."
I wish now to refer to the speeding up of the processes of justice. This will be done within the framework of British law by Emergency Assizes and by the creation of a number of supernumerary judges of the High Court. Accused prisoners will be brought directly before the High Court without any hearing before a Magistrates' Court.
Lastly, to turn for a moment to future measures for economic and social progress. The Government of Kenya have a number of schemes in an advanced state of preparation, and, upon my advice, they intend to announce them one by one when they are ready to be put into force. The time has passed for general assurances, and we must now show that we are ready to act.
Finally, a Deputy Governor has been appointed. He will be able to assist the Administration particularly in regard to reconstruction. He will also take some of the load off the shoulders of the Governor, who will thus have more time to tour the country. Where he has been able to do so, he has been received with acclamation. The response has been encouraging and has given evidence of the way in which he can lead, guide and inspire public opinion, particularly African. These visits have shown the population that he is with them, and they have shown that they are with him.
To sum up, the position of Kenya is still one of danger, but it is improving. The population is coming over to our side in large numbers—[Laughter]—I see no cause for amusement—the Home Guard is building up, the schemes for long-term reconstruction are well 465 advanced. Mau Mau has not spread significantly, and the great mass of the population are loyal and in peace. Perhaps the hon. Member would like to laugh at that?

§ Mr. S. Silverman
On a point of order. The right hon. Gentleman goes out of his way in the course of a serious statement of this kind to make a totally unjustified attack on an hon. Member of the House. Ought he to pursue his campaign against the administration of justice so far as not to—

§ Mr. Speaker
I did not hear anything said.

§ Mr. Lyttelton
I said that a large number were loyal.
I shall report to the House from time to time on the progress made. While we must continue to watch the situation with anxiety, and must be prepared to face some setbacks, we can regard the outcome with complete confidence.

§ Mr. Hector Hughes
I am obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity of asking a supplementary Question. Is the Minister aware that the people of these islands will be pleased with those small parts of the Minister's statement which assured us of peace being restored, but that the people will hear his statement with regret, because it makes no reference whatsoever—

§ Mr. Hughes
The Prime Minister waves backwards and forwards. [Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Mr. Harold Davies.

§ Mr. Harold Davies
On a point of order. Despite the high office which the Prime Minister holds, will you tell me, Mr. Speaker, whether you would allow any other hon. Member of this House to give the show that the Prime Minister has just given at a serious juncture of an African issue, when the democratic rights of the African people—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The Prime Minister.

§ The Prime Minister
May I ask you, Sir, for some information on a point of order? I have had an impression, which has been derived over a great many years 466 and which does not seem to be shared in many parts of the House, and I have always understood that there was no objection to an hon. Member walking between an hon. Member discussing or debating with another hon. Member across the Floor. I always understood that that might frequently occur. What was out of order was walking between an hon. Member speaking on the ground floor or the first floor and your eye, Mr. Speaker, and that was the point. Therefore, these cries of "Order" to which I have listened seem to be based on what I believe is a complete misunderstanding of the rules of order.

§ Mr. Speaker
I was about to say the same thing. It is not out of order for an hon. Member to leave the House while another hon. Member is speaking. I have seen it frequently done—perhaps more frequently in the case of some hon. Members than others. What is out of order is to walk between the Chair and the hon. Member who has the Floor of the House, so there has been no breach of order by the Prime Minister in this case. Perhaps the House will now agree to settle down and allow the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) to ask his supplementary question.

§ Mr. Hector Hughes
I was asking the Secretary of State whether he realises that the House will have noted with horror the complete absence from his long statement of any reference to steps which the Government may be taking to remove the fundamental social and economic causes which have brought about these troubles, and whether he will supplement his statement by dealing with that matter.

§ Mr. Lyttelton
I am afraid that the hon. and learned Member must have been so interested in some other exchanges that he could not have listened to what I said, because I devoted a considerable part of my statement to the very thing to which he is referring, and I recommend him to read it in HANSARD tomorrow in a calmer moment.

§ Mr. J. Griffiths
I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question which arises from the first part of his statement. I am sure that hon. Members on all sides of the House welcome the improvement in the situation in Kenya, and may I say 467 that today the Minister sought, quite rightly, to indicate that this is not a struggle between black and white, but a struggle between loyal, decent people and this terrorist organisation, and that, as a matter of fact, the overwhelming number of the people who have been killed have been Africans. May I, therefore, in view of that—[Interruption.] On a point of order. May I call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that an hon. Member opposite has made a reference to the effect that I supported Mau Mau?

§ Brigadier Prior-Palmer
The right hon. Gentleman is completely mistaken. I was not referring to him in the very least. I pointed over there and said, "Why do not you support it?"

§ Mr. Speaker
I think that no matter to whatever quarter of the House the remark was made, it would be out of order to suggest that. It is just the same if addressed to a back bencher as if addressed to the right hon. Gentleman. I ask the House in this matter to recollect itself. We have spent a lot of time on this matter and we have had an interesting statement. It does not help the clarification of our business if we have all these interruptions. I hope the House will now proceed with its business.

Hon. Members
Withdraw.

§ Brigadier Prior-Palmer
If I have caused any offence, I will, of course, withdraw what I said. My remark was, "Why do not you support it?"

§ Mr. Griffiths
I return to my question. It is quite clear—and I have sought to emphasise this in debate—that the obvious thing to do is to build up on the basis of racial co-operation all the forces that are fighting against Mau Mau. The Secretary of State gave us a further indication that the Asian people have themselves asked to be included in the conscription order. In view of that, will not the right hon. Gentleman consult the Governor on the desirability of including an African and an Asian representative on the Emergency Council on which a European official is already represented?
With regard to the Kenya African Union, did the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability or otherwise of taking this action at a time when these 468 matters are still the very important background, if not the actual issue, of the trial which is now pending? May I further ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he proposes to lay before us more evidence than has been given today for proscribing this organisation of a national character of Africans in Kenya?
Finally, I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question about a statement published in "The Times" on 9th June by Mr. Windley, the Acting Chief Native Commissioner, who, speaking on behalf of the Government, said: We would not have wished to stop political associations with sincere aspirations for the legitimate development of African interests and progress, but the Kenya Government can never again allow such an association as the Kenya African Union. Will the Secretary of State tell us the precise meaning of that statement? Is it a declaration by the Kenya Government that they will not allow any national organisation of Africans to be formed, and if so, is that proscription to be applied to other associations or other communities in Kenya, or is it to be purely a discrimination against the Africans?

§ Mr. Lyttelton
The right hon. Gentleman has asked three questions. The first was whether an African or an Asian was to be on the Emergency Council. I have discussed this matter very fully with both Africans and Asians and explained to them that the duties of the Emergency Council, at any rate before General Erskine arrived, were entirely of an operational character, and at the moment it is not intended to put either an African or an Asian upon it. But that organisation may well be altered as a result of Genera] Erskine's arrival.
The right hon. Gentleman's second question was with regard to the K.A.U. I have held my hand, and so have the Kenya Government, for a very long time in this matter, but the recent raid on the headquarters of the Mau Mau organisation in Nairobi—the so-called Central Council of Mau Mau—has disclosed beyond peradventure that the K.A.U. was inextricably interwoven with Mau Mau.
The last question asked by the right hon. Gentleman was about some words used by the Acting Member for Native Affairs. Upon that matter, I might recall to the right hon. Gentleman the words I 469 used in the course of my statement to the effect that the Kenya Government will give all the help they can to the formation of a political body or bodies which are not representative of only one tribe or one section of opinion. I think that if the right hon. Gentleman looks at my words he will see that what I imagine the Acting Member for Native Affairs was referring to was a society of this particular nature. I would welcome the appearance of a body or bodies representing African political opinion, and that, I hope, will satisfy the right hon. Gentleman.

§ Mr. Alport
When my right hon. Friend publishes the additional evidence for which the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) asks, will he also publish the evidence of the guidance and support which this organisation has received from supporters in this country and elsewhere outside Kenya?

§ Mr. Lyttelton
I must intervene to say that I have not given any pledge to publish any further evidence. The right hon. Gentleman pressed me to do so, and I gave some further information, but the question of publication of evidence about a society like this is another matter, because it might involve the safety of individuals and other matters of great importance besides.

§ Mr. Paget
I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman three questions. First, has he the slightest evidence of any guidance or support from this country? Secondly, what steps are to be taken to command and control the Home Guard? I am not for one moment saying that it has happened here, but I am sure the right hon. Gentleman has in mind the danger of any Home Guard or vigilante organisation becoming the interest of private adventurers. It has got to be kept very carefully under control. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what steps he has taken?
My third question is with regard to bringing people to trial before the High Court without any previous proceedings before magistrates. What steps is the right hon. Gentleman taking to provide that people who are charged shall be given copies of the evidence that will be given against them, and given a reasonable opportunity to prepare their defence in face of that evidence? A trial in which the accused has not had a 470 previous chance of seeing and considering the evidence against him is a wholly unsatisfactory trial. What is the substitute for the magistrates' decision?

§ Mr. Lyttelton
The hon. and learned Gentleman asks me three questions. In answer to the first, I have made no statement with regard to guidance or direction from this country. I do not think that I am called upon to answer that question. I have not made any allegation of that kind and I prefer to leave it at that. The hon. and learned Gentleman must address his question elsewhere. I do not propose to refer to that matter at all.

Mr. I. O. Thomas
Deny it or repudiate it, then.

§ Mr. Lyttelton
I said I did not propose to refer to it. With regard to the Home Guard, the hon. and learned Gentleman is entirely on the right lines in saying that we must be very careful that such an organisation is not used as an instrument of private vendetta. That is a matter which is always in our minds. The Home Guard comes under the civil power and recently, besides Colonel Morecombe, 30 additional European leaders have been appointed. Most of the Home Guard are in a static role, not a dynamic one. I do not think I can do more than say that that particular aspect is very highly important and I agree that it must be watched with the greatest care; and that we shall do.
With regard to the High Court procedure, I should be very glad—it would carry me too far to go into the whole machinery now—to satisfy the hon. and learned Gentleman on the point which he has made. There is nothing unusual in accused persons being brought straight into the High Court. It is necessary to allow sufficient time for their defence, but there is nothing unusual in it. In fact, it is already on the Statute Book.

§ Mr. F. Harris
Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it will be only by giving the very maximum of support to the loyal Kikuyu and making them feel safe that this problem will eventually be overcome?

§ Mr. S. Silverman
Will not the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, whatever may be his own view and the view of his immediate advisers, there are very many people who do not share the view that the course of conduct pursued either 471 by the right hon. Gentleman himself or the local Governor is winning the support of the local population, and that in the country there is considerable evidence that, whereas the overwhelming number of the population were on the side of the authorities and law and order, the result of what has happened is to lessen that support and not increase it? Will he bear in mind also that it is not only people who are politically opposed in other things who have this view, but that the view is widely shared in a great many political quarters, as is evident from the leading article in "The Times" today.

§ Mr. Lyttelton
I do not know why I should have to suffer a homily from the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway. His facts are entirely wrong. I have made a statement, giving them the lie direct, that an increasing number of Kikuyu are coming over and that the mass of the population are being won over. That is not a casual statement at all. It has been weighed by all the authorities in Kenya, and I stand by it. It is not usual to expect, in this Vale of Tears, universal approbation for what has to be done in a very awkward situation.

§ Mr. Brockway
I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, in terms of which I have given you notice, Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, The proscription of the Kenya African Union by the Governor of Kenya. I do not propose to discuss the merits of the issue, but I want to submit reasons why this request should be acceded to.
The first point is that this is a matter of definite and urgent public importance. The Kenya African Union is the largest political organisation in Kenya of the Africans, indeed the only organisation, and its proscription in the present circumstances is a matter of public importance.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman cannot argue the point now. If he will bring me his Motion, I will look at it.

§ Mr. Brockway
I was only advancing reasons why this is a definite matter of urgent public importance. Secondly, I submit to you that this is a new matter. 472 It is not a link in a chain of events. It is a major event in itself and a new event. For that reason, the request for the Adjournment on this issue should be considered and acceded to.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Member asks permission to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the proscription of the Kenya African Union by the Governor of Kenya. The hon. Member was kind enough to give me notice of this matter yesterday and I gave it very serious consideration. I find after that consideration that it is not within the Standing Order on the ground of urgency. There is no reason why the matter should not be debated in the near future just as well as today. I would not feel justified in applying the Standing Order so as to interrupt the Orders of the Day for that purpose.

§ Mr. Brockway
May I put this point to the right hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—Mr. Speaker has the rules of this House in his hands and not hon. Members on the opposite benches. The point I wanted to submit to you, Mr. Speaker, was that this is a new and urgent matter. Frequently from these benches questions have been put regarding the proscription of this organisation, and the answer has always been given from the Government Bench that it had not been proscribed. It is a new, urgent matter of public importance.

§ Mr. Speaker
I am not denying either its novelty or its importance, but what I am saying is that I do not feel that on grounds of urgency it entitles me to interrupt the Orders of the Day.

§ Mr. S. Silverman
On the question of urgency, Mr. Speaker, here is an organisation which is admitted to be the only organisation of one large section of the population. It is proscribed. Proscription is already in force and is now working, and it is something which, if the House expresses the view to the contrary, the Government would change forthwith. In those circumstances, may I ask why it is not an urgent matter?

§ Mr. Speaker
I did consider that, but it is not the sort of thing for which the rule was framed.