HC Deb 09 April 1959 vol 603 cc358-9
28. Mr. Stonehouse

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will order a judicial inquiry into the trial of Jomo Kenyatta and others, in view of the result of the trial of Rawson Macharia.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

No, Sir. The magistrate found that although Rawson Macharia gave false evidence at the Kapenguria trial he was not suborned to do so; he also found that the six other prosecution witnesses whom Macharia alleged had been suborned had not been suborned and had in fact given truthful evidence at Kenyatta's trial. These included the three men whose evidence was considered by the Kenyatta trial judge as " the most important piece of evidence " against Kenyatta.

I am arranging for a copy of he Macharia trial judgment to be placed in the Library.

Mr. Stonehonse

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Rawson Macharia was the principal witness for the prosecution at the original Kapenguria trial? As the magistrate in the recent case called him a perjurer, and as that case has thrown a very grave doubt on the conduct of the original trial at Kapenguria, is it not in the interests of justice in Kenya that there should be a judicial inquiry?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

No, Sir, certainly not. I advise hon. Members to wait until they have read the full judgment, which I will place in the Library. It is not true that he was the most important witness. The most important witnesses were Ephram, Johanna, and Stephen, as will appear from the report to be laid in the Library. It is quite untrue that anything has emerged to cast any doubt whatever on the validity of the sentence passed on Kenyatta.

Forward to