HC Deb 23 May 1963 vol 678 cc631-6
40. Mrs. Castle

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will state the precise terms of the assurance he received from the Prime Minister of Nigeria on 11th March regarding the admission to Nigeria of counsel for the defence of Chief Enahoro; and whether he was then or at any other material time given to understand that particular counsel would be refused entry to Nigeria.

Mr. Brooke

The assurance I received from the Prime Minister of Nigeria was in the terms which I communicated to the House on 14th March, namely, that the undertaking which had been given to the Divisional Court and the Appeal Committee of the House of Lords on behalf of the Nigerian Government meant that, if the Chief Justice of Nigeria gave his certificate for a named English barrister to appear for Chief Enahoro, the Nigerian Government would not refuse that barrister entry to Nigeria merely because he was going to represent Enahoro, and that they would not refuse him entry unless in his particular case there were other and good reasons.

From the outset I connected the form of this assurance in my mind with the publicly known facts that last year, though they were not going there to defend Enahoro, the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot) had been expelled from Nigeria and Mr. Gratiaen had been refused admission to the country; and the Nigerian Government then disclosed to me in confidence that they would admit any other British counsel to defend Enahoro, but not either of these two gentlemen.

Mrs. Castle

Is it not a fact that the Home Secretary has deliberately withheld this information from the House? Is it not also a fact that in his affidavit to the Divisional Court on 25th April he led the court to believe that completely satisfactory assurances had been received by him from the Prime Minister of Nigeria on 11th March which would ensure that Chief Enahoro would be allowed the counsel of his choice and that no barrier would be put in the way of his counsel entering Nigeria? Is he aware that if he had not given the Divisional Court that deliberate impression it might well have been that the court would have allowed Chief Enahoro's application for relief under the Fugitive Offenders Act? Has the right hon. Gentleman not once again been guilty of duplicity, and ought he not to resign his office?

Mr. Speaker

The last expression in all that must be withdrawn.

Mrs. Castle

On your instruction, Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw the word "duplicity"—but I repeat that the right hon. Gentleman ought to resign his office.

Mr. Brooke

The hon. Lady is mistaken in the allegations she makes. The undertaking in the first instance was given not to me but to the Divisional Court and, therefore, the Divisional Court was well aware of it. The matter was further clarified before the Appeal Committee of the House of Lords. I could not possibly have known at the time whether Chief Enahoro would wish for a British or Nigerian barrister to defend him. The essential point which I did know was that if he could have any British or Nigerian lawyer, except two, to defend him he could be certain of being very ably defended.

Mr. H. Wilson

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there has been no more flagrant case of the misleading of this House in recent years? Is he aware not only of the quotation that has been given of his own from HANSARD, but that the Attorney-General said in these terms in the House: …they should be assured that he should have the counsel of his choice from all those qualified to appear."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st March, 1963; Vol. 674, c. 678.] There was no clarification made by the Attorney-General. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the House was given a clear and specific undertaking by the Attorney-General, who did not wriggle at all in this matter, as we are now told that the Home Secretary did? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that in his affidavit to the court, having referred to the doubts expressed by the court he said: …questions had been asked in the Appeal Committee of the House of Lords about the form and effect of this undertaking…I received…an assurance of a satisfactory character from the Prime Minister of Nigeria. Is he aware that what he has told us this afternoon is a direct denial of the impression he gave to the House and the court? If the right hon. Gentleman knew at that time that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot) would not be allowed to go, why did he not tell the House at that time? Why did he mislead both the House and the court, and does he think that he would have got his proceedings through the House had he been honest with hon. Members?

Mr. Brooke

No, Sir; I misled no one, and the assurance to which I referred in that affidavit was an assurance which had already been explained to the House and which had not been challenged when I explained it—an assurance which had originally been given to the Divisional Court and the Appeal Committee of the House of Lords, and it seemed to them to be satisfactory.

Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux

Is not my right hon. Friend aware that the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich conducted the case of Chief Enahoro in this country during the whole period and that, therefore, it must surely have been obvious that that hon. and learned Gentleman would have been the one whom Chief Enahoro would have wished to conduct his defence? Is my right hon. Friend really telling us, therefore, that he had no idea who Chief Enahoro would wish to choose to represent him?

Mr. Brooke

It certainly was not for me to ask, and I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that the Lord Chief Justice himself in these proceedings said: I quite appreciate that this applicant may not want counsel from this country; it would be quite wrong to ask him today whether he did".

Mr. H. Wilson

But did not the right hon. Gentleman himself last week refer, in somewhat improper circumstances, to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich—it is within the recollection of the House—as "Chief Enahoro's counsel"? Did he not himself use that phrase, so was it not perfectly obvious, even to him, that my hon. and learned Friend was at that time and would be likely to be the counsel? This next point must be put to the right hon. Gentleman and he will find it difficult to acquit himself of this charge. Is he aware that statements have appeared referring to a conversation between himself and a learned judge about this case? Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether there have been any conversations between himself and a learned judge and, if there have, may we have a full report on them?

Mr. Brooke

No, Sir. I know of no such conversations. In regard to the right hon. Member's earlier question, I referred to the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich as Chief Enahoro's counsel because anyone who followed these proceedings would have known that he was his counsel—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] at the time when the assurance was given in court to the Lord Chief Justice and, indeed, in those very proceedings Mr. Gratiaen was specifically mentioned; so all these matters were matters of public knowledge.

Mr. Grimond

Is the right hon. Gentleman really saying that he knew all the time that the counsel whom Chief Enahoro would want would be the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich and that, in spite of that, he did not make it crystal clear to the House that he was precisely the counsel Chief Enahoro would not be allowed to have? The right hon. Gentleman must surely have realised that it was exactly with this point that the House was concerned and, considering that this whole matter arose over a very unfortunate misunderstanding under which Chief Enahoro came to this country at all, would it not have been much better for the right hon. Gentleman to have made it crystal clear that this undertaking was of no value about the counsel most directly concerned? Has the right hon. Gentleman made representations to the Nigerian Government that the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich should be allowed to defend him?

Mr. Brooke

As to the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, there is a Question on the Order Paper to one of my right hon. Friends. On the former point, I knew, and the whole world knew, that the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich had acted for Chief Enahoro in his case before the Divisional Court, but neither the Lord Chief Justice nor I could know what barrister Chief Enahoro would wish for—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—whether British or Nigerian, if he were returned— [Interruption.]—to Nigeria. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) seems to have changed his view, because on 21st March he said in the House: I am puzzled"— referring to me: …why he attaches such importance to the fact that a barrister from this country should be able to represent Chief Enahoro".— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st March, 1963; Vol. 674 c. 604.]

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. It is quite clear that we cannot have a debate on this matter in the middle of Question Time.

Mr. H. Wilson

On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker

Perhaps we may have one more supplementary question.

Mr. Grimond

Does not the Home Secretary appreciate that there are two points—

Mr. Wilson

Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker

There is now utter confusion, as a result, no doubt, of my trying to pay what was perhaps undue favour to the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Wilson

I rose on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon.

Mr. Wilson

I did not wish to pursue the matter with a further question, Mr. Speaker, but when you said that there could be a further question I naturally sat down. The point of order is that the House will wish to pursue the matter further next week, on a Motion of censure on the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman.