§ 19. Mr. Turtonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet completed his investigations into the murder of the mother and sister of Zachariah Mbuthia at Molo, Kenya, on 5th March, 1961; and if he will inform the House of the result of his investigations.
§ Mr. Iain MacleodI am obliged to my right hon. Friend for pointing out that the murdered woman was Zachariah Mbuthia's mother, not his wife. I am 564 sorry to have misinformed the House on this.
Monica Wambui, Mbuthia's sister, who was injured in the attack and who is the main witness in the case, was discharged from hospital some three weeks ago. She has now made a fresh statement to the police and investigations are continuing.
During their inquiries the police discovered that a letter produced by Mbuthia in support of his claim to have been threatened was written by himself. He has since been convicted and sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment by the resident magistrate, Nakuru, for giving false information to the police and forgery.
§ Mr. TurtonDoes not this case illustrate the difficulties experienced by the security forces in the prevention and detection of crime perpetrated by Mau Mau? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that not only this man but a man named David Mwai was threatened after the political meeting and before the murder, and that they have both had to have police protection; further, that the charge which relates to him occurred some weeks later when this man, in terror, tried by means of a forged instrument to get out of the danger area?
§ Mr. MacleodI should not like wholly to agree with all, the points that my right hon. Friend has made. I said when I spoke earlier that one cannot exclude, because one knows so little about this, the question of political motive, but I should have thought that the evidence for it is considerably reduced by the fact that the threatening letter in the case has now been discovered to have been written by the man himself.
§ Mr. CallaghanOn a point of order. Do we not understand that there are police investigations continuing in this matter? Without knowing anything of the details, ought we not to be pretty careful about making ex parte statements when the matter is still under investigation?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe matter is in order unless it is sub judice in the strict sense. I do not know enough about the facts, but I know of nothing against raising the matter.
§ Mr. TurtonCan the right hon. Gentleman make it quite clear that the forged letter appeared four weeks after the threats that were alleged and had no connection either with the murder or with the investigation?
§ Mr. MacleodNo, I do not wholly agree with that, because the letter that was produced was produced by this man in evidence to substantiate the allegation of threats, and it was subsequently found to have been written by himself.
§ Mr. CallaghanOn a point of order. Would it not be improper to permit further questions in view of the fact that the Minister takes the view that these matters may be related?
§ Mr. SpeakerThat does not arise, because I am not proposing to permit further questions.
§ Mr. CallaghanFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have no doubt—
§ Sir W. Bromley-DavenportOrder.
§ Mr. CallaghanI am on a point of order, and I propose to stay on it, whether the hon. and gallant Member likes it or not. Mr. Speaker, there may be attempts to put further Questions down, whether you propose to allow further supplementary questions at this stage or not. Although I have no desire to stop anybody asking a Question, I put it to you, Sir, that there is a case here where there is the possibility of further charges being made, and we ought to protect the man concerned, no matter whether he be a villain or not, in order that he may have a fair trial.
§ Mr. SpeakerI am greatly obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his assistance. If Questions are put down, I shall consider them in accordance with the rules of the House, and I shall take steps to obtain such information as I can which I would require to ensure that I did not infringe any sub judice rule in ruling about those matters.
§ Mr. CallaghanI wish to raise a further point of order on this matter, Mr. Speaker. I am anxious to assist the Chair in this case. This Question which was put down could, in my view, from the little knowledge I have of the facts, bring us into conflict with the ancient 566 rule of the House that we do not discuss matters which are or which may well become sub judice. The very fact that the Minister has himself said that he does not wholly agree with the allegations made by his right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) leads us into that position.
I have no desire to be disrespectful to you, Sir, and I hope that, likewise, you will feel that I am trying to do my best to protect this man and not come into conflict with his interests.
§ Mr. SpeakerI have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to assist. I do not accept, because I cannot now, the statement of the rule in the form in which he then stated it, but I beg to assure the House and the hon. Gentleman that I shall proceed carefully about this and other matters which raise any question of the application of the rule.