UGANDA (SITUATION) (Hansard, 9 December 1959)

§ Mr. John Stonehouse (Wednesbury)

I am sure it would be the wish of the House that, despite the fact that most hon. Members are now on their way home after a hard day's work, we should offer good wishes to the Colonial Secretary on his visit to Uganda. He will be able to stay there only two days and that, unfortunately, is hardly time enough for him fully to understand all the complexities of that country. Yet, while he is there, I hope that he will be able to meet representatives of all sections of opinion. It is true that some of those representatives are exiled or restricted in some way, but when the Colonial Secretary is able to see the situation at first hand perhaps he will give orders for these men again to have their freedom.

I fully appreciate that the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies will not be in a position tonight to give a full reply to all the points which I hope t) make on Uganda in the time available to me. He will, naturally, want to wait until the Colonial Secretary has returned. However, there are several points which can be described as pressing problems which the Government must resolve. The Government cannot expect to achieve any unanimity of opinion in Uganda, and only the Government can resolve the complexities of this situation. 700 For example, they must decide on whether to create a federal or a unitary form of State, and face up to the problem of the kingdoms in Uganda—a most thorny problem.

The Government have to consider whether there should be any protection for the minorities; the very small European minority, and the larger Asian one. There has been far too much prevarication on the part of the Government in the past few years and I hope that, in the next few months, decisions will be taken by the Government which will enable the people of Uganda to see the pattern of constitutional progress opening up before them.

There are great complexities in Uganda partly because, over the years, the British administration has failed to give a coherent indication of future constitutional development. Also, it is partly due to the fact that Uganda has not yet been able to produce political leaders who are generally respected throughout the country and who are able to knit the various tribes together into one or more major political parties.

Let us compare Uganda with Tanganyika. There are many more tribes in Tanganyika; that is admitted, but the Tanganyika African National Union has been able to bring the people together in some unity; and that applies not only to Africans, but to Europeans as well, because of that dynamic personality, Julius Nyerere. He has been able to give a lead in Tanganyika; but there has not been the emergence in Uganda of a leader who is so generally respected and able to knit the various tribes together.

Having said that. we have to admit that the Government must face the responsibility for most of the situation before us today; and it is a deplorable situation. Partly as a result of that hideous business of the deportation of the Kabaka of Buganda, effects are still felt, in that area in particular, as the Under-Secretary must know. People there have still not recovered from the awful shock of having their King deported, and then the Government trying, by high-handed methods, to force them to accept another Kabaka. Now the Kabaka has returned he has more glory as the result of returning to his throne, and this has not only given the Kabaka greater prestige, but has bolstered up 701 the traditionalist and feudalist groups in the Kingdom of Buganda.

The Government must accept responsibility for this position and they must, therefore, resolve it. Uganda cannot be held back. Uganda is in the middle of a continent, surrounded by countries all of which are moving forward. Kenya will have a constitutional conference next January. The Belgian Congo has proposals which are in the process of digestion. Tanganyika will have new general elections next September, and there is the possibility of complete independence within four or five years. Developments are going ahead in Ruanda-Urundi, on the borders of Uganda.

I ask the Under-Secretary of State to bear in mind the tremendous importance of establishing now in Uganda the conditions which will help to make democracy a success in that country. To the north there is the Sudan, which has shown that, unless independence is established on a proper democratic basis, it is possible for military dictatorship to take over, and that is a situation we do not want to have in Uganda. We want Uganda, when it does become independent, to have a strongly-based democracy with representative institutions, a sense of participation on the part of the people, and also well-developed political parties as well as trade unions, co-operative societies and all the rest, so that there will not be the emergence of petty dictators who will be able to do what they like without any sort of controls.

For far too long there has been in Uganda an element of Colonial List administrators who cannot bring themselves to admit that Uganda will soon be an independent country and that they must, therefore, prepare Uganda for its own independence. I do not want in any way to cast aspersions on the excellent team of administrators who work devotedly in the field. In the lower ranks those men and women have done an enormous job to build up the standards in Uganda. Many of them work out there at tremendous sacrifice, and I give them every credit for the job they do. But in the higher ranks, in the second tier of administration, there are many men who have not been able to bring themselves to realise the facts of 702 life in the mid-twentieth century. They are living in the 1920s or 1930s in their work in colonial administration. Because they have spent nearly all their lives in the Colonial Service they have been out of touch with the stream of democratic thought elsewhere, and, quite frankly, they do not realise that Uganda is on the threshold of independence and that they must help it prepare for that independence.

That is, I think, the explanation for the ridiculous way that the nationalist movements in Uganda have been treated. the Government take high-handed action against the leaders of these political movements without just cause, take high-handed action as though they know better than those representatives of political organisations what they should be doing in their own interests, and behave towards them as though Uganda were a large kindergarten and the people were a lot of schoolchildren who have to be restrained and directed at every stage along the road. That is absolutely fantastic in this day and age.

I hope that the Under-Secretary, and, indeed, the Colonial Secretary, will pay close attention to that book of lectures published recently by Sir Andrew Cohen, an ex-Governor of Uganda, who, in the lectures, delivered in the United States, gave some very good advice on the way colonial administrations should deal with nationalist leaders. They should not be looked upon merely as agitators or Communists. Although there may be "black sheep" among them, as is often the case, they should be recognised as men genuinely trying to serve their countries. I believe that the best hope the Government have of solving the problem in Uganda is to press ahead with reforms in the constitution in cooperation with the nationalists to enable the prestige of the Legislative Council to be built up.

One of the reasons why there has been this trouble in Buganda—the boycott and the arrests that have taken place there and the turmoil that is going on in certain parts—is that people generally do not have the respect for the Legislative Council which that body deserves. I hope that as a result of the Wild Committee's Report the Government will take some decisive action to increase the prestige of the Legislative Council by 703 direct elections which must be held in all parts of the Protectorate, and give that body the standing in the country which will enable people in all parts to look to it and recognise it as the focal point for political agitation within the Protectorate.

This will mean that the Government must deal very strongly with the traditionalist groups in Buganda. At present, the relationship between the Governor and the Buganda Lukiko is rather like a charade, with the Lukiko at one moment passing a resolution criticising the Resident in Buganda, and the Governor, because he does not like it, then vetoeing it. At another time the Governor cuts off a grant-in-aid to the Administration, whereupon the Lukiko decides to put a levy of 5s. on everybody in Buganda. This is not the way in which relationships between the central Government and the Buganda Lukiko should be carried on.

I hope that the Government will resolve the position by insisting that direct elections to the Buganda Lukiko itself should take place in the near future. If direct elections were held in Buganda, the Lukiko would more generally represent the people in Buganda than is the case today. The feudal groups in Buganda, of course, would oppose that development. They wish to cling to their power within the Buganda area and they will resent the idea of direct elections. I hope that we shall insist that they have direct elections to make them more generally representative.

I should like to turn now to a subject of which I have given the Under-Secretary some notice, because it is an extremely important point in relation to the position of Buganda today. This is the Penal Code Amendment Bill, which is designed to prevent boycotts being effective in Uganda. Frankly, this is a stupid Bill. It is designed to make it illegal for any person to persuade any other to refrain from the buying of goods.

Because I believe that this Bill could not possibly be enforced, as it would bring the law even more into disrepute than it is today, as it has been universally condemned by public opinion in Uganda, and as all the representative members, not only the Africans but the Asians like Mr. Visana and the Euro- 704 peans like Mrs. Barbara Saben, oppose it, I hope that the Colonial Secretary will use his powers to prevent it being implemented. It is not a Bill which does any credit at all to the Administration in Uganda.

I will quote what Mrs. Barbara Saben, one of the European representative members on the Legislative Council, said. She said that the Bill was designed to help the Government prevent intimidation. She had very great doubts about whether the Bill would achieve that. She said that she was very unhappy that powers were to be taken in Uganda to prevent peaceful boycotts, whereas in other parts of the Commonwealth no such Bills had ever been necessary. She went on to say that she believed that the Attorney-General was genuine in his desire to end the wickedness surrounding the boycott, but that she thought he was misguided and stubborn. Mrs. Saben said: It is no earthly use the Attorney-General arguing that the Bill is for the good of the country. The people of the country will not believe it. How right she is.

It is possibly an under-statement to say that the Attorney-General is stubborn and misguided, because he is responsible for some disastrous advice in the past, and this anti-boycott Bill, as it has been called, is the culmination of his bad advice. I hope that the Colonial Secretary will reject it. The Attorney-General said that no prosecution would be brought unless he himself approved it and that he would not give approval without careful thought. Quite frankly, I think that is no protection at all.

One final question that I want to put to the Under-Secretary is about the Africanisation of the Civil Service. Has any effort been made in this direction? I also want to know what is now the position with regard to the appointment of chiefs. Have the Government gone back on their promise to the African district councils that they would have the authority to appoint chiefs in their areas? What is now the position of the new appointments boards which have been established?

Finally, may I say that we hope the Colonial Secretary will enjoy his stay in Uganda? He will find it a very happy country. The people there are of 705 different colours, but most of them, of course, are Africans. Although the Europeans and Asians are in a minority they get on very well with the African people of Uganda, and provided these political problems can be solved, and provided the Government will give some clear indication of the constitutional development of Uganda towards democratic independence, there is every hope that Uganda will develop as a contented country continuing to make real progress.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Julian Amery)

I would, first, like to thank the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) for the good wishes which he offered to my right hon. Friend for the success of his visit to Uganda.

The hon. Gentleman spoke of the importance of setting as our aim a democratic and constitutional Uganda. I think it is only right to say that I find it very hard to accept the strictures which he passed on what he chose to call the "second tier" of our administration in Uganda. It seems to me that these people have done a very considerable job in preparing Uganda for self-government. The latest instalment of that job has been the appointment of the Constitutional Committee, the Wild Committee. The terms of reference of that Committee provide for consideration of the problem of minority representation.

The hon. Member called on the Government to take decisions on constitutional development. The study of the Wild Report may well prepare the ground for decisions of one kind or another, but I am sure that the hon. Member does not expect me to anticipate those decisions tonight. May I say how impressed we in the Colonial Office have been by the great care and attention to detail which the members of the Committee have shown? They have been all over the territory and have taken evidence of a very detailed character from a large number of people. I should like to pay my tribute to them.

The Report was signed on 5th December and presented to the Governor on 8th December. It is a lengthy document and he will no doubt want to study it carefully. We are not prepared to comment on it until we have had a chance 706 to see it and to consider the Governor's comments upon it.

The hon. Member dealt, in particular, with the anti-boycott law. He gave me notice that he would speak about this, and I will try to deal with the points which he made. First, we must consider what the effect of the boycott has been. How serious is the problem of the boycott? It has led to ruinous loss to traders, mostly Asian traders, and to some flight of capital from Uganda to Kenya. Kenya may be the gainer by this, but Uganda has suffered.

About 10,000 Africans became unemployed as a result of the boycott. They formed an association which clashed with supporters of the Uganda National Movement. The fact that such clashes took place and the danger that they might well be repeated were important factors in leading the Governor to proscribe the Uganda National Movement.

The boycott has produced a great many cases of violence and intimidation. There have been 140 cases of physical assault, including one death, 101 cases of damage to crops and 158 cases of damage to property, including the burning of houses. Altogether, 282 convictions have been obtained in dealing with some of these cases. No less striking, Uganda has lost at a conservative estimate £600,000 of revenue, which is a fairly big sum for a country as small as Uganda to lose. The anti-boycott law was fully debated in the Legislative Council. As the hon. Member said, it encountered considerable opposition there. Some thought that it involved undue interference with the liberty of the subject; others thought that it would be ineffective; and there was Asian and European, as well as African, opposition.

To meet the points raised by the opposition, the Government brought forward two major amendments. The first requires that the Governor must be satisfied that the boycott is resulting in, or is likely to result in, acts leading to violence, intimidation or damage to property. The second is that the law will run only until 31st December of rant year unless it is prolonged by a resolution of the Legislative Council. The law was passed. by 31 votes to 14, which suggests that, at any rate, not all 707 of the representative members were prepared to press their opposition to a vote.

In the middle of November the Bill became law. As yet, there has been no prosecution under it, but, of course, it has been in operation for only a short time and it is too early to judge whether it will be effective. Our belief is that it will be effective. The boycott continues, but the number of incidents has been on the decline. This may be partly due to the law, but I think that it is also partly due to the Katikiro's statement at the beginning of November. In any case, the situation has improved sufficiently to enable us to lift some of these restrictions.

The hon. Gentleman asked me what the position was about the appointments boards of the district councils. In 1955 an ordinance provided for the reconstitution of the district councils, and under this ordinance appointments committees were set up which had as their task the appointment of chiefs and other employees of the district councils. Membership of these committees was left to the full discretion of the councils, but I am afraid it is the case that this discretion was rather seriously abused. Some of the appointments committees were "packed".

Instead of showing a wise balance and moderation, the majority elements on the committees sometimes represented a religious faction and at other times one of the political factions, and sometimes they consisted of a group which could hardly be described as religious or political. They "packed" the committees purely with their own nominees. As a result, the chiefs and other employees came under a good deal of pressure from whatever happened to be the predominant local faction at the time.

This led to a considerable decline in both efficiency and impartiality, and by 1957 the Governor was convinced that the 1955 ordinance must be amended. The proposal was, therefore, put forward to set up new boards to be manned on the same principle as the Public Service Commission was manned. There was full discussion of this proposal in the Legislative Council. There was some opposition to it and some modifications were made to the draft Bill. It became law in the middle of last year.

708 The new boards have been set up throughout the Protectorate, except in Buganda where it does not apply, in all but two districts. In Ankole, the Eishengyero is in favour of the setting up of the new boards, but one authority in Ankole has gone to law claiming that the new boards are contrary to the 1900 Ankole Agreement. Their case was turned down in the High Court, but they have appealed, so that I cannot go any further on that aspect of the issue tonight. In the Bunyoro district the Rukurato has claimed that the new boards will be contrary to the Bunyoro Agreement, and no progress has been made there up to the present.

Elsewhere there have been some criticisms, but the new boards have been accepted and are working. In some cases they have official as well as unofficial members. The intention is that in due course they should be entirely manned by unofficials when suitable persons can be found. I am glad to say that although it is less than a year since the Bill was passed into law, there is already a marked improvement in the efficiency, fairness and impartiality with which the local administration is being conducted.

The hon. Gentleman expressed regret that my right hon. Friend would not be able to see certain persons when he was in Uganda as they were, to use the hon. Member's words, "not free". The persons in question are leaders of the United Uganda National movement who took part in and led the boycott movement. I gave some description just now of the suffering that has been caused by the boycott. The activities of the individuals concerned were investigated on points of fact by two High Court judges, one of them the Chief Justice, and they found without hesitation that the leaders had organised and conducted the boycott, that they refused to call it off, and, therefore, they can in a real sense be held responsible for the intimidation and violence that has followed.