HC Deb 02 August 1956 vol 557 cc1770-7

8.59 p.m.

Mrs. Eirene White (Flint, East)

The subject which I wish to raise tonight was not among those originaly submitted to Mr. Speaker for discussion in this series of debates on the Adjournment. I am, therefore, particularly grateful to both the Colonial Secretary and the Attorney-General for being good enough to come to the House at very short notice tonight to discuss a matter which is, in its own context, of some importance.

In common with several of my hon. and right hon. Friends, within the last week or two I have received a series of telegrams from the Prime Minister of Eastern Nigeria, Dr. Azikiwe. These have all been concerned with the difficulties which have arisen in Eastern Nigeria regarding an inquiry into the affairs of the bank there and the relationship with that bank of the Prime Minister.

I will refer only to the last three telegrams which I have received within the past 24 hours. In doing so, I should like to make one preliminary comment. I should like it to be perfectly understood that we on this side of the House are entirely in favour of an inquiry being made into this matter. After such serious allegations have been made about a person like a Prime Minister, it was clear to all of us, and, I am happy to say, clear to Dr. Azikiwe himself and to the Eastern Nigerian Government that an inquiry was necessary. There have been some differences of opinion, and, I think, some confusion, as to the precise nature of the inquiry and the position of the Secretary of State for the Colonies. It is for that reason that I want to refer to these last recent telegrams.

The telegram which I received yesterday morning said that the Eastern House of Assembly was about to discuss a resolution welcoming the decision to appoint a Commission of Inquiry but suggesting that the Secretary of State might have appointed rather different persons to undertake it. But very late last night we were startled to receive another telegram, which is referred to in The Times this morning, in which it was suggested that the Secretary of State, in order to establish this Commission of Inquiry, had to amend the Constitution of Nigeria. This, naturally, was a little surprising.

The Times gives a rather shorter version of this long telegram which we received and it quotes a statement, which, I think, is quite erroneous, that the Colonial Secretary made a serious mistake in ruling that the subject matter of Mr. Eyo's recent motion was federal and not regional. Mr. Eyo was the Minister who was obliged to resign some months ago, and I am a little sorry that the Secretary of State was unable to take action in this matter earlier so that it would not appear that he was in any way associated with Mr. Eyo's charges.

The statement went on to say that the Secretary of State appeared to be obliged to amend the Constitution, which was to be done on 4th August, and that this backdoor method of circumventing the law was to be denounced in the strongest terms. I believe that this is due entirely to a misunderstanding. Therefore, it is to be welcomed that we have an opportunity of clearing up this misunderstanding tonight.

The third telegram, which I received early this morning, referred to a particular change, of course not in the Constitution of Nigeria at all, but in a particular Order in Council. I have in my hand the Commissions of Inquiry Ordinance of 1940. The relevant provision is paragraph 22, which, I understand, has since been amended—at the time when the separate regions were established in Nigeria with Governors instead of Lieutenant-Governors in the regions and a Governor-General at the head of the Federation.

I believe that the difficulty has arisen owing to changes which were made in the ordinance. As far as I can understand, I do not think that there is any attempt whatever to change the Constitution of Nigeria. It seems to me that this has nothing whatever to do with whether the matter was politically regional or federal. It is a technical matter of law and that is really all that the Secretary of State has been obliged to do. As I believe that there may be a political misunderstanding about this, we should be greatly obliged if we could know tonight exactly why the Secretary of State has found himself in a position where an amendment had to be made to the law before he could properly establish this Commission of Inquiry.

It is because I desire that this Commission of Inquiry may not only proceed expeditiously in its work, but may have the full confidence of the people of Nigeria as well as the people of this country, that I hope we may have a satisfactory explanation.

9.5 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller)

As the question raised by the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) is purely a legal question, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, who is sitting beside me, has asked me to reply. Before I deal with the purely legal matters, may I say how much my right hon. Friend welcomes the way in which the hon. Lady has raised this subject, and the opportunity which she has given for the disposal of some of the fears which obviously have been raised by the knowledge that an Order in Council may be made tomorrow.

I wish to deal in some detail with the specific point raised by the hon. Lady. She has expressed the view that, in her opinion, this proposed Order in Council, the terms of which she has seen, does not in any way amend the Constitution of Nigeria. I can assure her that in my view she is absolutely right. There is no question whatever of amending the Constituttion of Nigeria in any respect by this Order in Council. I wish to make quite clear why I say that. I also wish to say, because I think it desirable, why it is necessary that there should be an Order in Council if the Inquiry is to be of the character which the hon. Lady and other hon. Members of this House desire. Then I wish to explain precisely what this Order in Council does.

May I start by referring to the Nigeria (Constitution) Order in Council, 1954. In Section 1 (4) of that Order in Council power is reserved to Her Majesty, with the advice of Her Privy Council, to amend or revoke this Order. That power has, I think, been exercised on two occasions. It is not proposed to exercise that power tomorrow. Subsection (5) of the Nigeria (Constitution) Order in Council says: Nothing in this Order shall affect the power of Her Majesty in Council to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Nigeria or any part thereof. So it is clear that this Order in no way restricts or limits the power of Her Majesty in Council to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Nigeria or any part thereof. It has always been the case that that power relating to the laws for the peace, order and good government. can be lawfully exercised by Order in Council. The proposed Order in Council to be submitted to Her Majesty tomorrow is an exercise of the power which Her Majesty in Council has, and which is not affected by the Constitution Order. It is not an exercise of the power under subsection (4) to amend or revoke that Order. The Order in Council submitted to Her Majesty tomorrow will not touch the Nigeria (Constitution) Order in Council of 1954, or the amendments made to that Order. I hope that I have made that clear.

I turn to the Commissions of Inquiry Ordinance, 1940, to which the hon. Lady referred. If I may say so, she referred to it very accurately. That is the Ordinance which not only gives the Governor the power to appoint a Commission, but also gives the Commissioners, when appointed, powers which are of great importance. In Section 7 of that Ordinance it is said that the Commissioners shall have the following powers: To procure all such evidence, written or oral, and to examine all such persons as witnesses as the Commissioners may think it necessary or desirable to procure or examine; To require the evidence (whether written or oral) of any witness to be made on oath or declaration, such oath or declaration to be that which could be required of a witness if he wore giving evidence in a magistrates court; To summon any person in Nigeria to attend any meeting of the Commissioners to give evidence or produce any document or other thing in his possession and to examine him as a witness or require him to produce any document or other thing in his possession, subject to all just exceptions; To issue a warrant to compel the attendance of any person who, after having been summoned to attend, fails to do so, and does not excuse such failure to the satisfaction of the Commissioners, and to order him to pay all costs which may have been occasioned in compelling his attendance.… I will not read the whole of the Ordinance, but it goes on: To admit any evidence, whether written or oral, which might be inadmissible in civil or criminal proceedings; To admit or exclude the public or any member of the public … and so on.

I think that the hon. Lady will agree, and that everyone who thinks that an inquiry should be held will agree, that the tribunal if it is to be a full inquiry must possess those powers which the Commissioners are given under paragraph 7 of the Ordinance. I have referred to that at some length and the reason I have done so will emerge later.

I now turn to Section 22 of the Ordinance, the Section to which the hon. Lady referred. That paragraph made it possible for the Secretary of State to exercise all the powers conferred by the Ordinance upon the Governor; so that the Secretary of State, under that Ordinance as it then stood, could himself appoint a commission or tribunal to inquire into a particular matter and—this is the point which is important—if he did so in the exercise of his powers under Section 22, Section 7, which gave the Commissioners powers which I have just read, would apply, and so the tribunal appointed by the Secretary of State would have those very necessary powers.

That was the scheme of the Ordinance. That was its effect, and at the time when the Ordinance was passed, there was, of course, a Governor. It was before Federation, and before there was a Governor-General and Governors of the regions. When those changes were made in Nigeria, and when a Governor-General and Governors of the regions were appointed, it followed that there had to be adaptations of the law, and an order was made in Nigeria which was called the Adaptation of Laws Order, 1954, that made some general adaptations in the laws of Nigeria and also some special amendments.

One of the general adaptations was that wherever the word "Governor" appeared in any Ordinance, it was to be read as meaning "Governor-General". If one applies that to Section 22 of the Ordinance it follows that under that Section, amended in 1954 by that Order, the Secretary of State had the powers of the Governor-General to appoint a commission or tribunal of inquiry, and the commission thus appointed would have the powers given by Section 7 of the Ordinance.

Further amendment was made in order to divide the spheres of the respective functions of the Governor-General and Governors under this Ordinance of 1940. The adaptation Order went on to provide: Except with the consent of the Governor or Governors of the Region or Regions concerned, the Governor-General should not exercise his powers of appointing a commission except in relation to a matter on the Exclusive Legislative List or the Concurrent Legislative List, as set out in the First Schedule to the Nigeria (Constitution) Order in Council, 1954. There was also a provision that Governors of the regions should not exercise their powers in respect of any matter included in the Exclusive Legislative List. That obviously meant the separation of powers between the Governor-General and the Governors.

In this case, the matter to be inquired into clearly relates partly, but not wholly, to banks and banking. That subject is included in the Exclusive List, so on an inquiry into banks and banking alone, the Governor-General can act under the Commissions of Inquiry Ordinance, 1940, and so, under Section 22, if the inquiry related only to banks and banking, the Secretary of State could, under the Ordinance, appoint a tribunal and the tribunal would have the powers under Section 7.

In this case it is impossible to say that the matters which ought to be the subject of inquiry are confined to banking and banks. Some of them are matters which, after this amendment, would fall within the regional sphere, and therefore it is necessary to have the terms of reference wide enough to permit of a full investigation. It would surely be most undesirable if, at the end of the day, the impression was left that this matter had not been fully investigated because of some restriction imposed and because of the manner in which the commission of inquiry had been appointed.

Bearing in mind that my right hon. Friend can, under the Ordinance, exercise the Governor-General's powers of appointing a commission, but not Governors' powers, it would follow that unless some other machinery were used to attract the powers to be given to the commission, the inquiry might well find itself handicapped to a very considerable degree. As I have indicated, my right hon. Friend, by Order in Council, under the power which was reserved when the Nigeria (Constitution) Order in Council, 1954, was made, could provide for the appointment of a commission covering all these matters. That is what the proposed Order in Council seeks to do. There is no need by Order in Council to provide in terms for the appointment of a commission of inquiry by my right hon. Friend.

What is necessary is to ensure that the powers possessed by a commission under the Commissions of Inquiry Ordinance should be held by the Tribunal which is to be appointed by my right hon. Friend. The only way of securing that satisfactorily, in view of the particular difficulties which have arisen owing to the adaptation of the original Ordinance, this point perhaps not having been perceived at the time, is by an Order in Council merely attracting to a tribunal appointed by my right hon. Friend the powers given to the commissioners by Section 7 of the Commissions of Inquiry Ordinance, 1940.

The hon. Lady was quite right in the view which she expressed that this is really nothing more than a piece of machinery to overcome a technicality—which has inadvertently arisen, I should have thought—by amending the word "Governor" to mean Governor-General only, so as to prevent my right hon. Friend from exercising the power which he had when there was only a Governor, exercising the Governor's powers under Section 22.

So far as I can see, there can be no point and no reason for saying that my right hon. Friend can exercise the powers of the Governor-General by appointing a commission of inquiry but that he cannot exercise the powers of a Governor. I can see no reason for that whatever. I therefore think that the result of that adaptation, the unfortunate result which makes this Order in Council necessary, was purely inadvertent. As I am sure everyone will agree, it is desirable that this commission of inquiry, this tribunal, should have all the powers to get to the bottom of the matter, to ascertain the truth, that such commissions and inquiries normally have.

That is all that this proposed Order in Council will do. It is a complete misrepresentation of the case to suggest that it has anything whatever to do with the Constitution. It does not alter the Constitution of Nigeria one iota. All it does is to make sure, so far as can be made sure, that the Tribunal appointed by my right hon. Friend will possess, not new powers—not novel powers—but the powers that such tribunals usually possess and ought to possess if a full and proper inquiry into the matter to be investigated is to be completed.

Those are the reasons for the Order in Council, and I hope that I have said enough on a rather complicated tangle of Orders, Ordinances and matters of that sort to put at rest any fears that may be held in any quarter as to what is proposed to be done by this proposed Order in Council which will be submitted to Her Majesty tomorrow.