CHIEF ENAHORO (HOME SECRETARY'S ACTION)

HC Deb 27 May 1963 vol 678 cc989-1055

7.1 p.m.

Mr. Harold Wilson (Huyton)

I beg to move, That this House deplores the action of the Home Secretary in failing to reveal either to this House or to the courts that he had grounds for believing that Chief Enahoro would not be permitted representation by counsel of his choice. We are not concerned tonight with the broad issue which has been before the House on a number of occasions during the past few weeks. We are not concerned with the issue of the return or otherwise of Chief Enahoro to Nigeria. We are concerned with one of the more discreditable incidents in what, from start to finish, has been a highly discreditable story—discreditable, in a sense, to the House and to the Government and, in particular, to the Home Secretary, whose stubbornness and inhumanity alone should have disqualified him from holding the office that he holds. Nothing that we do or say tonight—nothing that we can do or say tonight—can alter the decision which the Home Secretary took —or that the House took in authorising the Home Secretary—to deport Chief Enahoro.

What we can do—and I submit that if the honour of this House is to be maintained, what we must do—is to censure the Home Secretary for a grave dereliction of his duty to this House, in blatantly withholding from it information in his possession which was highly material to the decision with which we, as a House, were faced—and, indeed, deliberately using words the effect of which could only be to mislead the House into assuming the exact opposite of the truth which he knew.

Let me remind the House of the Home Secretary's words, on 21st March. He said: An undertaking was given to the Divisional Court and repeated to the Appeal Committee that, if the Chief Justice gave his certificate for a named English barrister to appear for Enahoro, the Nigerian Government would not refuse that barrister entry into Nigeria merely because he was going to represent Enahoro. They would not refuse him entry, unless in his particular case there were other and good reasons.

Hon. Members

Hear, hear.

Mr. Wilson

I shall deal with that point in a moment.

The Home Secretary went on to say: That was how the Division Court and the Appeal Committee interpreted the undertaking. I took particular trouble when the matter came to me, because it seemed to me of great importance. to check with the Nigerian Government whether this undertaking had been correctly interpreted. I have been assured by the Prime Minister of the Federation of Nigeria that the undertaking has the meaning and was intended to have the meaning which I have stated. The right hon. Gentleman also said: They would not refuse him entry, unless in his particular case there were other and good reasons. The House was meant to take this at its face value. In case there was any doubt, the Home Secretary referred to the interpretation put upon this undertaking by the courts. I will come in a few moments to the question of the interpretation which the courts put upon it.

The Home Secretary was misleading us in that statement—and, lest any hon. Member were not satisfied, he went on to tell us how he had communicated with the Nigerian Government to get the matter spelled out. He said: I have been assured by the Prime Minister of the Federation of Nigeria that the undertaking has the meaning and was intended to have the meaning which I have stated. Hon. Members opposite cannot Laugh this off; it is far too serious a matter even for them.

The one thing that the Home Secretary did not tell us—and what he deliberately withheld from us—was the fact that the Government of Nigeria gave him an additional piece of information which completely contradicted the impression that he was at pains to give the House and which he gave to the courts, namely, that Chief Enahoro could have the counsel of his choice provided he did not choose the two counsel that he wanted to choose. That was the qualification.

This statement we did not get from the hon. Gentleman—although he knew it—until it was dragged out of him last Thursday, when he had already got his miserable deportation order through the House and when it was too late to affect the vote. I have sufficient faith in this House, even with the present balance of the parties, to believe that if it had known, a month ago, what it knows now, the Home Secretary's decision to deport Chief Enahoro would have been repudiated by the vote of this House. Many hon. Members who voted for the Home Secretary did so most unhappily, as was made very plain during the debate. I believe that their sense of the honour of this country and of the House would not have permitted them to vote as they did if the Home Secretary had been honest with the House on that occasion.

Now we get the excuse that the Home Secretary's qualifying phrase unless there were other and good reasons was meant at that time to make it clear to the House that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot) and Mr. Gratiaen, Q.C., would be excluded. That is what he told us last Thursday. This is not how the House understood it. It was not how the majority of hon. Members opposite understood it. Are we really to be told tonight that all the hon. Members who voted for the Home Secretary understood it then in that sense? Did they understand it? Of course they did not. The Home Secretary got his vote by suppressing vital information.

The only excuse put forward last Thursday—and I expect that we shall get it again tonight—is the one based on the morality of an unscrupulous hire-purchase trader who gets his pound of flesh on the basis of a few words in small print and in incomprehensible wording on the back of a hire-purchase form. What a hire-purchase financier may consider right is one thing; what is expected of a Home Secretary in his dealings with the House is another. The hire-purchase trader at least had his qualifications printed somewhere; the Home Secretary did not.

Nor is the Home Secretary alone in this; there is the Attorney-General. In the same debate, he said: A point was raised about whether it is a good or a bad thing that the Chief should be represented by a British Q.C. at his trial. The only interest of Her Majesty's Government in that was not in securing that a British Q.C. should represent him, but that they should be assured that he should have the counsel of his choice from all those qualified to appear. It was thought necessary to secure that to see that he would have the counsel of his choice. There is no qualification there. Her Majesty's Government had no interest at all in seeing whether he had a Nigerian or a British Q.C. It is entirely a matter for him to choose by whom he prefers to be represented. The Attorney-General will not deny that he used those words. There is no qualification in them.

The hon. and learned Gentleman went on: For that reason alone, the Home Secretary thought it necessary to clarify that matter with the Nigerian Government." — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st March, 1963; Vol. 674, c. 603678.1 I repeat what the Attorney-General said: It was thought necessary to secure that to see that he would have the counsel of his choice. This was clear, and the House regarded it as clear. Did any hon. Member, hearing the Attorney-General, think that by that phrase he meant that the two most likely counsel would be excluded? Can any hon. Members get up and say that, having heard those words from the Attorney-General, they thought they related to the exclusion of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich and Mr. Gratiaen? Of course hon. Members did not understand that.

What I must ask—and we must be told this tonight—is whether the Attorney-General knew, when he used these words, what the Home Secretary now tells us he knew. Did the Attorney-General know? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman will try to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. I understand that the Prime Minister may do so. But if the Attorney-General does not intend to seek to catch your eye, I think that we have the right to ask him to come to that Box now and tell us whether he knew. [HON. MEMBERS: Answer."] He refuses to get up to tell us.

This is a very serious matter for the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman may say that he was misled by the Home Secretary, as the House was. That would aggravate the Home Secretary's offence. On the other hand, he may tell us, if only he would answer, that he condoned and compounded the offence by adding his authority to that of the Home Secretary, because, in these matters, the authority of the Attorney-General is very much greater than that of the Home Secretary, quite apart from the question of who the two individuals may be at any period.

The Attorney-General, whoever he may be, is not only the legal adviser to the Crown and to the Government. He is also a servant of this House. It is, from time to time, his duty to advise the House on legal matters—a duty going beyond his responsibility to the Government and the Crown—and the hon. and learned Gentleman, like his predecessors, has frequently accepted this duty and has told us that it was his duty to advise the House in a particular legal sense.

If that is so, and if, in giving the House this legal advice, he knew then what the Home Secretary now says he himself knew, then the hon. and learned Gentleman's use of words whose only effect could have been to mislead the House raises an issue of a different dimension even from the action of the Home Secretary.

There is one more question I must ask before I turn to another aspect. Did the Government as a whole know, or was this a guilty secret locked in the bosom of the Home Secretary? When the Cabinet considered this question, was it told? The Prime Minister spoke in these Enahoro debates on two occasions. Did he, in these interventions, know that Enahoro would be denied counsel of his choice if counsel of his choice turned out to be either my hon. and learned Friend or Mr. Gratiaen? Did the Prime Minister know that the Home Secretary had been told this?

I hope that the Prime Minister, when he replies, will be completely frank with the House on this matter, because we have a right to know. If the Prime Minister did know, and the Government as a whole knew, then what we are dealing with tonight is not a personal act of bad faith by one or two Ministers; it is a conspiracy to withhold material information from the House in order to get through the Division Lobby a Motion which would have been rejected if that information had not been withheld. The House, therefore, has a right to insist on the truth, and we want to have the truth from the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister tonight. We do not want to have to drag it out of them in a month's time.

I want to turn to the other side of the question. In his statement of 21st March, the Home Secretary explained the assurances that he gave us by reference to concern expressed in the courts. One of the reasons he gave us for accepting the assurance—which he repeated—was, as he said, the interpretation put on it by the Divisional Court and the Appeal Committee. In his affidavit, dated 25th April, which is a public document, the Home Secretary made it clear that he felt that he had to be satisfied on the question of representation before he could make his original deportation order.

I quote from that affidavit: The inquiries into the facts which I require to know in order to enable me to discharge my statutory duty were not completed until 12th March. Two aspects of the case in particular protracted these inquiries. I shall quote only the first of these, since it is the only one of the two which is relevant. First, the Applicant had submitted that there were serious grounds for apprehension that if he was tried he would not be allowed counsel of his choice. An undertaking had been given to this Honourable Court on behalf of the Nigerian Government in this connection, but questions had been asked in the Appeal Committee of the House of Lords about the form and effect of this undertaking. I considered that in the interests of the Applicant it was crucial that I should be left in no uncertainty about this. After an approach to the Nigerian Government through the British High Commissioner in Lagos I received on 11th March an assurance of a satisfactory character from the Prime Minister of Nigeria. That was the right hon. Gentleman's phrase— …an assurance or a satisfactory character… There were no qualifications, no ex-elusions, no hint of them, nothing in small print.

In this affidavit, which was sworn on oath, the Home Secretary said that he had received …an assurance of a satisfactory character … The right hon. Gentleman said that in a context which showed that by "satisfactory" he meant something which would reassure the learned judges who had raised this question about representation. That is why I must ask what it was, in the context of the court hearing, that the right hon. Gentleman meant by this assurance of a satisfactory character.

Again, only last Thursday at Question Time, when he was referring to the assurance he gave to the Divisional Court and the Appeal Committee, he said: …it seemed to them to be satisfactory." — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd May, 1963; Vol. 678, c 633.] What the right hon. Gentleman said may have been satisfactory to the learned judges, but this question can only be elucidated by reference to the doubts which the right hon. Gentleman referred to and which were expressed by the learned judges involved in this case.

As the House knows—because all of this is on record—both the Lord Chief Justice and the other learned judges made this a central issue. Lord Parker said: If I felt there was a real danger of that"— a refusal of entry to counsel— I should myself hesitate before refusing some sort of relief to this Applicant And in relation to the exclusion of Mr. Gratiaen, who, the House may remember, was excluded specifically because he was to defend Chief Awolowo, Lord Parker said: However oppressive the action may be in depriving Chief Awolowo of legal representation of his choice, I am satisfied that if this Applicant were returned there would be no oppressive action of that sort taken in his case. The Lord Chief Justice, therefore, because of the affidavit by the Home Secretary, said that he was satisfied that there would be no oppressive action in this case of the sort taken in Chief Awolowo's case.

The Home Secretary attempts to interpret the minds of learned judges, but I will not. But every hon. Member might wonder whether, in fact, the affidavit of the Home Secretary did not have a direct bearing on the result of this case, because the words I have read suggest that it might perhaps have done so.

Following this question at the Appeal Committee, Lord Reid said this to counsel for the Nigerian Government: Their Lordships wish a reply on the allegation that there may not be a fair trial if this Petitioner is returned …they wish you to concentrate on the matter of the trial which can be expected if this man is returned to Nigeria. Then, learned counsel for the Nigerian Government interpreted this as referring to the exclusion of Chief Awolowo's counsel, Mr. Gratiaen.

After some argument about that, and a repetition of the Home Secretary's assurance, Lord Reid asked: If it had been said that the authorised counsel would be permitted to enter once the authority had been given by the Chief Justice, that would have been wholly satisfactory. But how do we know that he will not be prevented from entering on some other ground altogether? …May I take it that the substance of the undertaking is that, if the Chief Justice authorises the appearance at this trial of some counsel, the entry of that counsel into Nigeria will not be prohibited on any ground? That was what the learned judge at the Appeal Committee asked counsel for the Nigerian Government.

Learned counsel replied: I do not think that I could give that undertaking because all sorts of things might happen between the Chief Justice giving his certificate and the person arriving, as the Lord Chief Justice pointed out, with smallpox. In other words, the answer given when the assurance was asked by learned judges in another place was that if the Lord Chief Justice gave a certificate counsel would not be refused entry unless there was some other grounds, such as smallpox, and we never heard about smallpox from the Home Secretary, nor has he called it in aid now.

Lord Reid went on to say these words, which should be carefully weighed by hon. Members opposite: I think one can say that it would not be quite playing fair with the courts in this country if one found that a person who was authorised was refused admission on arrival for some reason which they refused to disclose. Has the Home Secretary the reason for the refusal to permit my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich to enter Nigeria?

Referring to the undertaking which was in the words which the Home Secretary gave, counsel later said: The word 'merely'"— and the House will remember that the Home Secretary used the word "merely"— was inserted because there might well be reasons which, the court would appreciate, fell quite outside the question of trial which would be all the normal reasons, if I can use that word, for a Government to refuse entry to an individual which they must keep to themselves but in relation to this trial made it abundantly clear no such counsel would be refused. Again, referring to the exclusion of Chief Awolowo's counsel, Mr. Gratiaen, Lord Reid said: The Government of Nigeria have, in effect, said, 'We will not do that again'. If one is assuming good faith, they will not do it again. In the judgment of the Appeal Committee of another place, relying solely in this respect on the affidavit of the Home Secretary, the judge in question said: The Government of Nigeria have, in effect, said, 'We will not do that again'. If one is asuming good faith, they will not do it again. How did he come to be misled? He was misled by the affidavit of the Home Secretary and in exactly the same way as the House was misled—because the Home Secretary did not tell the courts any more than he told the House, that he had been privately tipped off by the Government of Nigeria that these two counsel would not be allowed in.

The Attorney-General was in the same position. We know that the Attorney-General is very good at getting on the telephone halfway through a debate and getting an answer. Did he get on the telephone about this? I have already asked this and we have still not had a reply—when the Home Secretary prepared his affidavit, presumably with the advice of and on the advice of the Attorney-General, did the Attorney-General not think it right to advise the Home Secretary that in his affidavit before the Appeal Committee of another place it was his duty to disclose to that court everything that was relevant to its consideration of this matter?

In commending his statement to the House, the Home Secretary, as was the Attorney-General, was concerned to give us the impression that his assurance met the doubts of Her Majesty's judges as expressed in February. He went so far as to say how they interpreted it. He said, in relation to those doubts, that he went back to the Government of Nigeria and secured an assurance of a "satisfactory character". Can he honestly say, after what I have just quoted from Lord Reid and from the Lord Chief Justice about the points on which they wanted to be satisfied, that he had secured an assurance of a satisfactory character, and that he did tell them honestly the full truth of what assurance he had received?

Can the right hon. Gentleman honestly say, after the doubts they had expressed, that if he had told them what he has told us now they would have interpreted it as being satisfactory? Does he—we have to get this from him tonight—justify the stating on oath in his affidavit that he had secured a satisfactory assurance when he had withheld—on oath—from the affidavit the most relevant item of all on which the judges concerned put not one, but several dozens of questions?

I repeat what I said last Thursday. This is the most flagrant case of misleading the House that most of us have known since we came into the House. It can hardly have been an act of inadvertence. I am not suggesting that the Home Secretary, as a sophisticated, legal master mind, set out with malice aforethought to deceive the House. That is not the character of the Home Secretary. In his case his reactions are of a rather slower moving and somewhat bovine type. Perhaps a certain amount of protective cunning was used on his part, but certainly not positive deception. But the effect is the same. The House was misled throughout these debates on what turned out to be two of the very vital issues of the whole subject.

Last Thursday, when my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), put the question to the Home Secretary, I was perfectly sure that the Home Secretary would get up and tell us that he had been misled and that he was shocked by the decision to exclude the counsel of Enahoro's choosing. I thought that that was what he would tell us, but the whole House was aghast at his admission that he had known all along. It was equally amazed that with one breath he could refer to my hon. and learned Friend as the Chief's counsel, as he did in these debates, and in the next breath tell us, as he did last Thursday, that he could not possibly guess whom Chief Enahoro would choose as his counsel. Whom did the Home Secretary think he would choose—the Attorney-General?

Let me tell the Home Secretary that I have today had a letter from Chief Enahoro's solicitors. I quote: Enahoro's solicitors can state categorically he has never had any other counsel than Dingle Foot in mind and this is entirely borne out by the fact that on his first appearance in court in Lagos he refused to plead until 'my counsel, Dingle Foot, arrives'". That is the assurance which we have had from Enahoro's solicitors and yet the Home Secretary could stand up last week and say that he had not the remotest idea whom he would choose. That he knew that it could not be my hon. and learned Friend or Mr. Gratiaen was one thing kept from the House.

No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will argue, as he argued on Thursday, that the House knew what his little qualification meant when, on 21st March, he said: They would not refuse him "— Enahoro's chosen counsel— entry unless in his particular case there were other and good reasons "— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st March, 1963; Vol. 674, c. 603.1 What did the Home Secretary understand by "other and good reasons"? The only illustration given in the course of this matter was raised when the Lord Chief Justice mentioned smallpox. As my hon. and learned Friend, as far as we all know, is not suffering from smallpox, what other and good reasons has the Home Secretary in mind to justify the exclusion?

The whole House knows why my hon. and learned Friend was declared a prohibited immigrant. It was because, in the course of his professional duties, having, as he had repeatedly, represented N.C.N.C. personalities in Nigeria, last year he represented a member of the Action Group. It was for that reason, and that reason alone, that he was declared a prohibited immigrant, and I am extremely surprised that at no time did the Government make representation on behalf of a member of the British Bar being excluded on grounds of that kind. This is certainly not a good and sufficient reason. It certainly does not fulfil the qualification made by the Home Secretary, even if we had understood what he was talking about. As I have said, learned judges themselves were at pains to ensure that an exclusion such as that applied in Mr. Gratiaen's case—that he was excluded on the ground and the only ground that he was to defend Chief Awolowo—would not be repeated in the case of Chief Enahoro.

The House, in recent years, has become very tolerant and easy-going on matters of the duties which Ministers owe to the House, perhaps too tolerant. We are used to seeing the House treated with contempt in a whole number of ways. But there is one action that the House cannot tolerate. It is the action of a Minister who, on a subject of great importance, so important that it has led to four major debates in the House, involving the Prime Minister himself as well as other right hon. Gentlemen, has deliberately withheld information material to the House's decision, so that the House had to take its decision on the basis of information so defective and so twisted in its form as to be totally misleading. When that is at stake, the House has no alternative but to demand the Minister's resignation.

7.30 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Henry Brooke)

After the attack which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has made on me, I hope that the House will do me the courtesy of listening while I go over the facts, the facts of this exceedingly difficult case, once again from the beginning.

Last year, in 1962, well before Chief Enahoro came to this country and was arrested, the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot) was expelled from Nigeria. I have never wanted to dwell on that, but it received considerable publicity at the time and it is a fact which was publicly and widely known. Later Mr. Gratiaen, another barrister, was refused permission to land from England in Nigeria. Both these things happened before Chief Enahoro's case, which first came on at Bow Street in December of 1962.

The Bow Street magistrate found that there was a strong or probable presumption of his guilt—I am using the words of the Fugitive Offenders Act—on the charge of treasonable conspiracy brought against him, and the magistrate committed him to Brixton prison to await return to Nigeria. Enahoro then applied to the Divisional Court for a writ of habeas corpus and also for relief under Section 10 of the Fugitive Offenders Act. Section 10 authorises the court to stop someone from being returned to another Commonwealth country to stand his trial there, if the court thinks—here again I quote the words of the Act—that it would be unjust or oppressive or too severe a punishment to send him back.

The Divisional Court, sitting under the Lord Chief Justice, dismissed both applications. In other words, the court held that it would not be unjust, it would not be oppressive, it would not be too severe a punishment, to send him to Nigeria to stand his trial. Before reaching that decision the court examined all aspects of the case presented to it on behalf of Chief Enahoro, and the words of the Lord Chief Justice's judgment show that the court paid particular attention to the question whether in the Nigerian courts Enahoro would be able to have an English barrister to defend him, if he wanted one; not a particular English barrister, but an English barrister at all.

There is no unqualified right of audience in the Nigerian courts, so I am informed, for counsel from overseas. The courts there, as the House knows, have a high reputation, and there are Nigerian barristers of great ability available to appear in them. A barrister from overseas wishing to appear in a Nigerian court must go to Nigeria and apply to the Chief Justice of Nigeria, who himself is a member of the Privy Council, for a certificate authorising him to appear in that particular case. This is now the general rule in Nigeria. It was the rule before ever the question of Chief Enahoro's representation arose.

The Divisional Court in London was determined to be absolutely fair to Enahoro. It might have said that, as there were highly competent Nigerian counsel available in Nigeria, the question whether or not he could have a barrister from England to defend him did not arise. But the court leaned over on behalf of Enahoro to assure itself completely that he would not be restricted to a Nigerian barrister if he wanted an English one, and that he could have a wide choice of barristers from England if he so wished. The court did not know what he might want. In fact, the Lord Chief Justice said in the course of his judgment: I quite appreciate that this applicant may not want counsel from this country; it would be quite wrong do ask him whether he did". But the Lord Chief Justice's judgment showed quite clearly, and so did the reports of the case published in the Press—because all this took place in open court—that the court was determined to find out what would happen if Enahoro asked for counsel from England to defend him in the Nigerian courts. Would the Nigerians say to whomever he asked for, "No, we are not going to let that man in, because we are not going to let anybody from England in who is coming to defend Enahoro"? Obviously that reason could be given over and over again, with the ultimate effect of excluding every English barrister.

On this point—it is the crucial one—the Divisional Court obtained an undertaking from the Nigerian authorities which satisfied the court. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has conveyed to the House that the court was satisfied partly as a result of the affidavit I had sworn. I think that the House should know that these proceedings before the Divisional Court to which the right hon. Gentleman was referring, and which he said were influenced by my affidavit, took place on 15th January, and my affidavit was sworn on 22nd April.

Mr. H. Wilson

We must at least get agreement on the facts here— [Laughter.]—this is no laughing matter, hon. Gentlemen cannot laugh this one off. The right hon. Gentleman gave an assurance to the court and he made further inquiries in the course of his affidavit. He knows this perfectly well. He stated in the House, long before the date of the affidavit, on 21st March, that the Chief had found his assurance satisfactory.

Mr. Brooke

The right hon. Gentleman cannot get out of it. The right hon. Gentleman has misled the House. The undertaking which the Divisional Court—not I, but the Divisional Court—obtained from the Nigerian authorities was that if Enahoro chose a counsel from England who, according to the law of Nigeria, was entitled to appear in a Nigerian court, the Nigerian Government would not refuse that counsel permission. That undertaking was quite plainly not an unqualified undertaking to let in everybody, even somebody who was already persona non grata in Nigeria. But it was as wide an undertaking as any Government could be expected to give.

No Government which had already expelled a man, or refused to admit him to the country, would dream of giving a promise to let that man in purely because an accused person in its courts asked that man to come into the country and defend him. I am quite sure that no British immigration officer would admit that man, and no British Government would give an undertaking to admit him simply because an accused person asked for him— [HON. MEMBERS:" What were the questions all about?"] The Lord Chief Justice and his fellow judges, sitting in the Divisional Court, without any affidavit from me, accepted the Nigerian Government's undertaking as satisfactory. Having got that undertaking, giving Enahoro a wide choice of British or Nigerian counsel, they held that it would not be unjust and would not be oppressive if, on that basis, he went back to stand his trial in Nigeria.

Enahoro next petitioned the Appeal Committee of the House of Lords for leave to appeal against the Divisional Court's decision. This was on 6th February. The terms of the undertaking already given on behalf of the Nigerian Government were specifically brought to the notice of the Appeal Committee, and their Lordships questioned counsel for the Nigerian Government about it at some length, to make sure that there was no ambiguity.

Evidently they were satisfied with the explanation they received and regarded the undertaking as satisfactory, because they refused leave to appeal. In other words, they upheld the decision of the Divisional Court that it would not be unjust or oppressive for Enahoro to be sent back to Nigeria on these terms. It had become quite clear to me by then, and must have been equally clear to anyone following the case even from the newspapers, that the Nigerian authorities were not intending to let into Nigeria to defend Chief Enahoro in court someone they had already expelled or refused to admit on those grounds. [HON. MEMBERS: "0h."]

Mr. Dick Taverne (Lincoln)

Can the Home Secretary explain what was meant by the Lord Chief Justice when he seemed to be assured that no oppressive action of the kind taken in Mr. Gratiaen's case when he appeared for Chief Awolowo would be repeated?

Mr. Brooke

The Lord Chief Justice is entitled to reach his own decisions in this matter, but what he was indicating, I understand, was that the courts might take a different view if a succession of British barristers came along and in each case the Nigerian Government said, "We will not let anyone in who is coming to defend Chief Enahoro." But the Divisional Court received an assurance that that would not happen and that no counsel would be excluded except on other good grounds.

Mr. R. T. Paget (Northampton)

In Chief Awolowo's case my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot) and Mr. Gratiaen had been excluded—one had been removed and one had been excluded—because they were defending Chief Awolowo. Lord Reid in another place was extremely concerned about that undertaking. He indicated his concern and he was eventually satisfied by counsel for the Nigerian Government. He said: The Government of Nigeria have in effect said, ' We will not do that again.' If one is assuming good faith, they will not do it again.

Mr. Brooke

Yes, as I understand it, counsel for the Government of Nigeria said there was no intention of again excluding anybody simply because he was coming to defend someone in the Nigerian courts, but they reserved their right—they explicitly reserved their right—to exclude somebody for other and good reasons. [HON. MEMBERS: "What reasons?"] This was accepted both by the Divisional Court and by the Appeal Committee of the House of Lords, competent bodies.

I was saying that it had become clear to me, and must have been equally obvious to everybody, that this was the Nigerian authorities' intention. It was the obvious conclusion to which the whole form of the undertaking pointed. That meant to anybody who had been following the case that if Enahoro asked for the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich to represent him in the Nigerian courts the Nigerians were not going to rescind the expulsion order upon him nor let him in. That was clear to everybody from the day when the undertaking was given, which was 15th January. I noticed that even the Daily Mirror, which is hardly a pro-Government newspaper, this morning recognised that and made that very point.

Mr. Sydney Silverman (Nelson and Colne)

The right hon. Gentleman is telling the House that anyone who knew the history of this matter would have known that the Nigerian Government were not going to admit my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot) for the reasons he gave. In that event, can the Home Secretary explain why, when the Nigerian Government told him in express terms that they were no: going to admit my hon. and learned Friend, they made it a question of confidence so as to prevent him telling the House what he says everyone knew already?

Mr. Brooke

I can certainly speak for myself and I shall speak for myself in the course of my speech, which I intend to carry through in an orderly way.

When the Nigerian authorities said in confidence to us on or about 9th March that they would admit any British barrister to represent Enahoro except Mr. Gratiaen or the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich, they were only confirming what I was certain of already, from the proceedings that had taken place in open court. But the court and the Appeal Committee had both accepted that this was not the point on which the question turned whether or not it would be just for Enahoro to go back to stand his trial. There are many able barristers from England whom he could have had.

Provided that Enahoro had a free choice of counsel to represent him, whether British or Nigerian, other than those one or two who were already persona non grata in Nigeria for other reasons—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] —the courts took the view that it would be neither unjust nor oppressive for him to go back there to stand his trial, and so in the end did I. But, before reaching my decision, I had to take everything into account whether it had been before the court or not, and I did. I gave special consideration to a petition which Enahoro had sent in to me urging reasons for not sending him back to Nigeria.

I also set myself to make certain beyond all shadow of doubt exactly what the undertaking by the Nigerian authorities meant and that there was no trace of risk that he would be refused the services of all English barristers if he wanted an Englishman and not a Nigerian. [HON. MEMBERS: "All?"] That was the question which was the important one in the eyes of the courts and the courts are as well qualified as anyone to pronounce on a matter of justice. They clearly did not think it would be unjust if Enahoro was unable to get as his counsel one or two persons whom the Nigerians had already refused to have in their country. Their concern was to be assured that Enahoro could have either a Nigerian or a British barrister to represent him in the Nigerian courts, whichever he wished. This was the real issue and not a question of individuals.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe (Devon, North)

Could the Home Secretary help us on one point? He has told the House that it was quite clear to him that these two gentleman would be excluded and that they were not to be included in the undertaking which was before the courts. Is he suggesting that the knowledge of that exclusion was also in the mind of the Divisional Court in January and of the House of Lords Appeal Committee in February?

Mr. Brooke

I am not suggesting that individuals were in the mind of the Divisional Court, but I am suggesting that both the Divisional Court and the Appeal Committee of the House of Lords knew exactly what the undertaking by the Nigerian authorities meant. I have now come to the point when the proceedings—

Mr. Eric Fletcher (Islington, East)

rose—

Hon. Members

Sit down.

Mr. Brooke

I have now come to the point when the proceedings in the courts were over but I had not reached my own decision. The case was no longer sub judice, because the Appeal Committee had refused leave to appeal. I did something to make assurance doubly sure, which every Home Secretary is fully entitled to do at that stage.

I want to apologise for a slip I think I made in answering a supplementary question last Thursday. I said that I had had no conversation with a judge, because I thought the right hon. Member for Huyton was referring to an allegation in a newspaper just before, that I had discussed with a judge whether I ought to reveal what I knew of the Nigerian Government's intentions about the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich. I never had any conversation of that sort at all with any judge, but I did—I want the House to know this and I want to correct that supplementary answer of mine—I did do, away back at the beginning of March, what Home Secretaries often have to do in carrying out their official duties. When the case was no longer sub judice, I consulted the Lord Chief Justice about what had taken place in court.

The consultation with him was solely on the nature of the undertaking which the court had been given. He satisfied me that what the court thought it meant and what I thought it meant was the same. It was the normal type of consultation which Home Secretaries have to have with judges, but we never discussed at all the question into which his name was brought in that newspaper report the other day.

Whatever the courts believed the undertaking to mean, I thought it essential that there should not be the slightest danger of misunderstanding between me and the Nigerian Government as to what it did mean. I therefore took the extra step of communicating through our High Commissioner in Lagos with the Federal Prime Minister of Nigeria. I set out what our courts had believed the undertaking to mean and what I believed it to mean, which was that if the Chief Justice of Nigeria gave his certificate for a named English barrister to appear for 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.

The Prime Minister of Nigeria replied that that was the meaning which the undertaking had and was intended to have. I told the House all about this in full. I described it in detail when I announced my decision on 14th March. I made it perfectly clear to the House that it was not an unqualified undertaking to admit anybody, but that it was an undertaking which both the Divisional Court and the Appeal Committee had accepted as satisfactory.

The right hon. Gentleman criticised me the other day, although he got slightly confused about it today, for saying in my affidavit of 22nd April that the assurance I had had from the Nigerians was satisfactory. But it was exactly the same as the assurance which the Divisional Court and the Appeal Committee had received, and which they regarded as satisfactory. Why was it wrong for me to swear an affidavit for the Divisional Court much later that an undertaking was satisfactory when the court itself had already held the undertaking to be satisfactory?

On a matter of proceedings in a court of law, why should I hold myself up to understand justice better than the judges? Why should I be "more royalist than the King"? I described the undertaking in detail to the House not once but twice. First on 14th March, and then again in the debate on 21st March. My words were perfectly clear. No one questioned me. It was quite obvious what my words meant, that the Nigerians retained the right to exclude anyone who was persona non grata on other grounds. No one challenged it. No one took up what I had said, except the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party. He said that he was puzzled why I attached importance to the fact that a barrister from this country should be able to represent Enahoro.

I attached importance to it because the court had attached importance to it: to his being able to have either a Nigerian or a British barrister, as he chose. That is exactly what my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said, speaking later in that same debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] He did not spell it out in as great detail as I did, but it is absurd to allege that there had been some change in the position between my speech at 5 o'clock and his speech at 8 o'clock which led him to use different words from mine.

I had made a prepared opening speech. He was winding up and answering questions, and if there had been any intention of going back on my long statement, the Government would have said so, and if the Opposition thought that there had been any change in those three hours, why did they not ask?

Mr. John Morris (Aberavon)

Did the Attorney-General know in fact that the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot) would be excluded, and when was he told?

Mr. Brooke

The communication was made on the date that I have mentioned, and, of course, it was known to the Government as a whole.

Hon. Members

Oh.

Mr. George Brown (Belper)

If it was in fact known to the Government as a whole, meaning also the Attorney-General, will the Home Secretary explain to us why the Attorney-General used these words: The only interest of Her Majesty's Government in that was not in securing that a British Q.C. should represent him, but that they should be assured that he should have the counsel of his choice from all those qualified to appear. It was thought necessary to secure that to see that he would have the counsel of his choice." —[OFFICTAL REPORT, 21st March. 1963; Vol. 674. c. 678.] "Qualified to appear", means, as the Home Secretary has explained, since the change of the law in Nigeria, a barrister who obtains the Chief Justice of Nigeria's certificate to appear.

The Attorney-General said they were concerned to see that he would have the counsel of his choice. If the Attorney-General then knew that if he chose my hon. and learned Friend he could not have him, why did he use those words?

Mr. Brooke

My hon. and learned Friend had been addressing himself to the question whether Enahoro would be allowed to have only a Nigerian counsel or a British counsel. [Interruption.] That was the point he had been dealing with. He then used the words that the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned, "They should be assured that he should have the counsel of his choice from all those qualified to appear". I quite agree that he was not making a detailed statement going over all that I had said, but it is not unusual for those who are winding up a debate not to repeat in detail everything that has been said; that is taken for granted.

If the Opposition really imagined that there was some mysterious change of intention by the Nigerian authorities between 5 o'clock and 8 o'clock, why did they not ask at the time? No one from that day to this has ever suggested that my statement and the Nigerian Government's assurances were not perfectly clear.

The Opposition, instead, went full cry up the false trail of alleging that if Chief Enahoro were returned to Nigeria he would be put on trial for his life. It was their choice that they concentrated on that. They paid no attention at all to the other. They never challenged the Leader of the Liberal Party when he took the view that who would defend Enahoro was not the real point at all. That was the only comment made on my statement.

Now all the allegations against me that if I sent Enahoro back to Nigeria he would face a capital charge have proved baseless, too. He is being arraigned there before a single judge, and under Nigerian law a trial conducted by one judge sitting alone cannot end in a death sentence.

I have told the House, throughout, all the facts on which I based my decision in this case which has been perhaps as difficult a case as a Home Secretary could have to face. We have never had another case of a Commonwealth citizen charged with conspiracy to overthrow by violent means the lawfully constituted Government of his country, a partner country with us in the Commonwealth.

Chief Enahoro three times applied for habeas corpus and three times his application was rejected by the court, and three times he was refused leave to appeal to the House of Lords.

The Lord Chief Justice in one of these later proceedings on 25th April said, after referring to my part in the matter: Every possible step has been taken to see that it would be just that he should be sent back, and, if one may use the expression, every one seems to have leant over backwards in his favour. The right hon. Gentleman asked me why I did not say that the Nigerians were not going to let in these two particular barristers, and the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) interrupted and challenged me on that. I will give him the answer. First, because I was never asked. Secondly, because it was not my job, and would not have been very courteous, gratuitously to remind the House that the hon. and learned Member had been expelled from Nigeria.

Thirdly, the information was given in confidence and nobody but the Nigerians themselves could announce what Nigeria would do if particular persons sought admission to Nigeria. Fourthly, our courts had been satisfied that Enahoro's receiving justice in Nigeria would not depend on whether he had somebody who was previously expelled from Nigeria to defend him.

The thin basis for this Motion of censure—and it is transparently thin—is that I omitted to state what was in any case obvious without my stating it, in answer to a hypothetical question which I was never asked, on a matter which Her Majesty's judges had treated as not material to the real issue—the issue of justice. The Opposition are making a mountain out of a foothill.

8.1 p.m.

Mrs. Barbara Castle (Blackburn)

The Home Secretary's answer to this charge is no answer at all. The date of the affidavit referred to by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition is, as the Home Secretary knows full well. irrelevant to the argument that we are advancing from this side. The right hon. Gentleman's affidavit came at one stage in a succession of events which hang together and which form a coherent whole which makes it perfectly clear that the courts accepted assurances from the Nigerian Government which were of a different nature from what they believed them to be and that the Home Secretary knew all along that the courts were under a misapprehension as to the exact nature of those assurances.

From the very beginning of this affair, the Home Secretary has admitted that the right to have a counsel of his choice was vital to our consideration of whether Chief Enahoro would have a fair trial. It will not do for the Home Secretary to come along now and say that by "the counsel of his choice" what he and the Attorney-General meant was a wide choice of counsel, or that he could have some counsel from England although not a particular one.

We have, all of us in this House, and so have the courts, time and time again concentrated on the definition of the words the right to have a counsel of his choice". The Home Secretary, realising the importance that both we and the courts attach to this, has gone out of his way to give assurances that would allay the very fears that have now been fulfilled.

The Home Secretary went out of his way to deal with this point in his statement to the House on 14th March. He went out of his way to deal with it before the Divisional Court on 25th April in his affidavit, when he repeated that he had obtained satisfactory assurances. He repeated it gratuitously when there was no need for him to have made that submission.

It will not do for the Home Secretary to try to put a new interpretation on the word "qualified" to appear before the Nigerian Bar. If anybody is qualified to appear before the Nigerian Bar, it is my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot), who, for the past eight years, has been going to Nigeria regularly as a member of the Nigerian Bar. No doubt whatever was cast upon his legal or personal qualifications during that period.

What has altered is not my hon. and learned Friend, but the law of Nigeria, which, a short while ago, altered the arrangements under which all counsel from this country wanting to appear before the Nigerian Bar must now obtain a certificate from the Chief Justice to appear in a particular case. That change in the law of Nigeria, however, in no way affects the qualifications, legal or personal, of my hon. and learned Friend to appear before the Nigerian Bar.

The Home Secretary's repeated and gratuitous references to the point about Chief Enahoro's right to have a counsel of his choice shows that he has accepted personal responsibility for getting this point clear in the minds of all of us. The Home Secretary tells us that he did not reveal that Chief Enahoro could have any counsel of his choice except the two counsel who were his and whom he wanted to remain his counsel, because everybody knew that they would not go; he says that he was not asked the question specifically. The reason why he was not asked specifically was because he twice volunteered information to the effect that he had obtained assurances that would satisfy us all. That is why the Home Secretary was not questioned about the names of these two individuals.

Every one of us knew who were the counsel of Chief Enahoro's choice. Who else would they be? in answer to a Question of mine last week, the Home Secretary admitted that everybody knew them to be the counsel of Chief Enahoro's choice. If, therefore, he gave us repeated undertakings on this point, we would naturally assume that they covered those two gentlemen.

The importance of the fact that the Home Secretary's undertakings should cover those two gentlemen, the two counsel whom Chief Enahoro would obviously choose, was so great that there have been no less than six attempts during this affair to spelt out the assurances on this point. It was first raised in the Divisional Court on 15th January. It was again raised in the Appeal Committee on 6th February.

On 11th March, the Home Secretary went to the length of getting it spelt out to his own satisfaction to the Prime Minister of Nigeria. On 14th March, he came to the House of Commons and spelt it out again. On 21st March, in the debate in the House, he spelt it out again, and finally, in an affidavit before the Divisional Court on 25th April when the court was discussing a quite different point, he went out of his way to reintroduce the assurances and to lull any remaining suspicions which might have been in the minds of the court.

It is true that on 15th January and 6th February, it was rather their Lordships and the counsel of the Nigerian Government who were arguing the point, but on the remaining four occasions it was the Home Secretary in person who spelt out those assurances and took personal responsibility for them.

The Home Secretary says—he did so last Thursday—that from the outset he connected the form of the assurance with the publicly-known facts, namely, that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich had been told to leave Nigeria and that Mr. Gratiaen had been refused the right to enter the country to defend Chief Awolowo. The right hon. Gentleman has admitted it. This was the point at the back of everybody's mind. The Home Secretary said that from the outset he connected the form of the assurance with the publicly-known facts. So did we. We were connecting the form of his assurances, assuming that they covered these publicly-known facts. So did the judges. That is why both we and they were concerned at every stage to get an undertaking that would cover these two cases and ensure that they did not arise again.

It will not do for the right hon. Gentleman to say that by this time everyone, including, presumably, the judges, knew about what had happened to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich and Mr. Gratiaen and were writing them out of the picture. That argument will not stand the challenge of what, in fact, was said by the Lord Chief Justice in his judgment before the Divisional Court on 15th January.

I challenge this House to deny that there can be anything clearer than these words of the Lord Chief Justice: Finally, and I confess this is the problem which I always thought was the point in this case at the very time that the application was first moved at the end of last term, is the point which concerns the refusal to allow Queen's Counsel to enter Nigeria. Certainly, the Lord Chief Justice was clearly in that passage connecting assurances with the publicly known facts.

He continued: Let me make two things clear. 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. Equally, it seems to me that we are not concerned with what powers there were to prevent Queen's Counsel from landing under Section 13 of the Immigration Act, which powers the Immigration Officer purported to use. That was in the case of Mr. Gratiaen.

The Lord Chief Justice continued: What this Court is concerned to see is whether there is any danger if this Applicant is returned to Nigeria that he, if he desires a Counsel of his choice, will be refused that Counsel in the same terms as Chief Awolowo was, namely 'because you are coming to defend a particular person in a particular proceeding'. If I felt that there was a real danger of that, I should myself hesitate before refusing some form of relief to this Applicant". In other words, if the Lord Chief Justice had known at that time that Mr. Gratiaen, at any rate, was ruled out, he would have hesitated. It cannot be clearer than that.

The Lord Chief Justice went on: Mr. Hutchison"— counsel for the Nigerian Government— within a matter of hours of the point being raised, has obtained the Government of Nigeria's instructions and an undertaking that if this Applicant chooses a Counsel from England who according to the law in Nigeria, is entitled to appear in the Nigerian Courts— and that covers both my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich and Mr. Gratiaen, both of whom, according to law of Nigeria, are entitled to appear in the Nigerian courts— the Executive will not refuse that Counsel permission to land merely because he is going to represent this Applicant". It simply could not be clearer what were the anxieties in the mind of the Lord Chief Justice; just those two cases about which we have been arguing.

The Lord Chief Justice went on—and I do not apologise for repeating the quotation used by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition earlier, because this is vital: That being so, however oppressive the action appears to be—and I am not saying it was because we have not got the full facts—in depriving Chief Awolowo of his legal representation, I am quite satisfied that if this Applicant is returned there will be no oppressive action of that sort taken in his case. In other words, the Lord Chief Justice asked Mr. Hutchison to get from the Nigerian Government an assurance to the effect that the kind of exclusion which took place in the case of Mr. Gratiaen would not be repeated. It was because he was satisfied that it would not be repeated that he decided that it would not be oppressive to send Chief Awolowo back.

So far, so good—or bad. But the Appeal Committee of the House of Lords, when an application to appeal by Chief Enahoro came before it, still had some nagging doubts in its mind because it knew of the treatment in these two previous cases. The Appeal Committee wanted to get it absolutely clear that, when an undertaking was given, a counsel from England would not be excluded merely because he would represent Chief Enahoro—and that there would not be some other wangling done to keep him out.

Thus, the Appeal Committee wanted still further assurances. If hon. Members will study the proceedings of the Appeal Committee with care, as I have, they will see that it is perfectly clear that the judges were seeking assurances and that they were given them in a form which makes the action which has now been taken against my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich and Mr. Gratiaen quite unwarranted.

Mr. Hutchison gave them this assurance: There is absolutely nothing to prevent any counsel …if this Petition wishes him, to make the application in the proper way according to that Act, and the Chief Justice will consider it and give his certificate or not. Lord Reid was not happy about that and said: Yes, but then look at the last line of it. It is perfectly satisfactory up to the point when the Chief Justice gives authority for the counsel to represent the accused; but then all the undertaking is that the authorised counsel will not be refused on the ground merely that he is to take part in this trial. It it had been said that the authorised counsel would be permitted to enter once the authority had been given by the Chief Justice, that would have been wholly satisfactory. But how do we know that he will not be prevented from entry on some other ground altogether? So Mr. Hutchison asked, in effect, "What kind of undertaking do you want and how do you want it worded?"

Lord Reid said: If the Chief Justice authorises the appearance at this trial of some counsel, entry of that counsel into Nigeria will not be prohibited on any ground? Mr. Hutchison said: I do not think that I could give that undertaking, because all sorts of thing might happen … with smallpox. That was the illustration he gave of the sort of reason why he could not give an absolutely categorical, out-and-out assurance. He said: I am not wishing to be facetious. What I am saying is that there might be some ground which does not come into one's mind now …". Could anything be more clearer than that? The fact that one ground might be that a year ago my hon. and learned Friend was declared persona non grata was in the Home Secretary's mind and has been all along. He says that it has been in his mind and that it should have been in the minds of us all. It should have been the one thing we knew not to be covered, he says, but here is the counsel of the Nigerian Government saying: … there might be some ground which does not come into one's mind now … and that is smallpox.

It is important that I should read this, because it is very detailed and it is difficult for every hon. Member to follow all the details—although the Home Secretary has followed them all and he is basing his apologia to the House on the full knowledge of all these factors. Their Lordships were still so worried about this point that they went on with it: Lord Morris: According to the Affidavit, the reason was that he had orders to refuse entry to any lawyer arriving from England in order to represent any accused person in connection with the trial of Chief Awolowo and others. That refers to the reason for refusing entry to Mr. Gratiaen last year. Lord Morris asked Mr. Hutchinson: Was your undertaking intended fully to meet that point? Mr. Hutchinson: That was, indeed, the purpose of it. The word 'merely' was inserted because there might well be reasons which, the court would appreciate, fell quite outside the question of the trial which would be all the normal reasons, if I could use that word, for a government to refuse entry to an individual … Is it a normal reason for a Government to refuse entry to counsel merely that he wants to represent and defend a member of the Opposition party? That is the only reason— [An HON. MEMBER: "Persona non grata."] But why was my hon. and learned Friend declared persona non grata? The only reason ever given is that he had appeased in the Nigerian courts to defend a member of the Opposition party. No other reason has ever been given—

Mr. Niall MacDermot (Derby, North)

The Home Secretary has twice referred to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot) as if to suggest that there was something discreditable to him about the way in which he was excluded from Nigeria. Is it no': a fact that the only body to whom that was discreditable is the Nigerian Government?

Mrs. Castle

I entirely agree, and I hope to come to that point in a moment.

This is not a normal reason for refusing entry—this is a highly abnormal reason. Yet it was again stressed that it would be only a normal reason for refusing entry … which does come into one's mind now … That had to be provided for by allowing a little bit of latitude to the Nigerian Government.

Their Lordships, having had those two assurances, had, of course, to accept that the two cases about which they were anxious were covered and, indeed, Lord Reid once more made it perfectly clear. Referring again to the fact that Mr. Gratiaen had been refused entry on the ground that he wanted to defend Chief Awolowo, he repeated: The Government of Nigeria have, in effect, said, 'We will not do that again'. If one is assuming good faith, they will not do it again. It was on that ground that the right of appeal was denied to Chief Enahoro.

It is against that background that the Home Secretary comes into the picture—on 14th March. According to what he has told us, he had by then been in personal touch with the Prime Minister of Nigeria to get satisfactory assurances, and it must, according to what he tells us, have been on 11th March that the Government of Nigeria told him that the assurances given by Mr. Hutchinson on their behalf before the Appeal Committee and the Divisional Court were not quite what they seemed to be, because in no circumstances would they allow my hon. and learned Friend or Mr. Gratiaen to enter Nigeria.

Surely, the first duty of the Home Secretary, finding that the Divisional Court and the Appeal Committee had been misled—in however good faith, with whatever good intentions—by counsel for the Nigerian Government, was to let the facts be fully known. If he was to give elementary justice to Chief Enahoro, was not that the least he could have done—or was he determined to get Chief Enahoro out of the country by hook or by crook? Perhaps it was at the diktat of other members of the Treasury Front Bench, but he has told the House time and time again —it is his proudest boast—that he alone has taken the decisions in these cases; that he has full discretion, and will exercise it independently.

The fact is that the information he got from the Prime Minister of Nigeria on 11th March contradicted the assurances given by counsel for the Nigerian Government on the two previous occasions. What did the Home Secretary do? Did he reveal the truth? On the contrary, in his statement to the House on 14th March, knowing that these niggling doubts were still in people's minds, he said: There is, however, one matter to which I thought it right to give particular attention. Before the Divisional Court"— He then proceeded to refer to the proceedings before the Divisional Court in April and before the Appeal Committee in February, and went out of his way to say that he thought it so important that there should be do doubt that he had been in touch, through our High Commissioner in Lagos, with the Prime Minister of the Federation of Nigeria, and said: …and I am assured by the Prime Minister that the undertaking has, and was intended to have, the meaning I have stated." — [OFFICIAL REPORT. 14th March, 1963; Vol. 673, c. 1542–3.] That is, the meaning that the Divisional Court and the Appeal Committee thought it had. When the right hon. Gentleman knew that it had a very different meaning altogether from the one that had been deployed, on that ground alone he can be accused of whatever is the Parliamentary equivalent of duplicity. This is the stage at which he proceeded to say that there had to be other and good reasons for excluding the counsel of Chief Enahoro's choice—the other and good reasons having, as is already been pointed out, been clearly defined by the two courts.

Finally, we come to the Divisional Court's action on 20th April. It is at this point that the right hon. Gentleman's affidavit comes into the picture because, by then, the court was dealing with quite different aspects of the case, under a different Section of the Fugitive Offenders Act. Along comes the Home Secretary, submits an affidavit and, in the course of it, and knowing all this previous background, goes out of his way to say: I considered that in the interests of the Applicant it was crucial that I should be left in no uncertainty about this. After an approach to the Nigerian Government through the British High Commissioner in Lagos I received on the 11th March an assurance of a satisfactory character from the Prime Minister of Nigeria. That could normally have been meant to do only one thing—to remove any still remaining doubts in the minds of their Lordships about the freedom of Chief Enahoro, not to have a counsel from England, not to have a white counsel, but to have the counsel of his choice—because who can say that it is a satisfactory assurance if Chief Enahoro is told, "You can have this counsel, but you cannot have that one"?

The Home Secretary now says that he always knew that there were other reasons for excluding these two gentlemen. Let us look at these other reasons. They are not the normal ones referred to by Mr. Hutchison. They are not smallpox. In the case of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich, no other reason has ever been suggested except the fact that he had appeared in the Nigerian courts for the Action Party—the Opposition party. I repeat: never during all the years that my hon. and learned Friend has been going to Nigeria regularly has there ever been a slur on his character or on his legal ability.

I suggest to the House that it is a quite intolerable insult on the part of the Home Secretary to come along now and say, "Of course he could not go. He was persona non grata", as if he had leprosy or had been found out in some malpractice. What does it mean in the political situation of Nigeria to be persona non grata? It means merely to be exercising what would be a normal right in any other country, namely, to appear for the Opposition.

But even assuming for a moment that a counsel was once turned out of the country simply on the ground that he was defending somebody whom the ruling authorities did not like, and even if the Home Secretary thinks that that is good ground for turning him out—which I do not—does the right hon. Gentleman really think that it is adequate ground for accepting automatically that he be excluded for ever more? Even if it were, how does the Home Secretary deal with the case of Mr. Gratiaen? He has never been declared persona non grata.

Here again, we owe it to Mr. Gratiaen to make it absolutely clear that not the slightest slur has ever been cast on either his character or his legal ability. Let us make it quite clear that he is a very distinguished lawyer indeed. He was formerly a Supreme Court judge in Ceylon, then Attorney-General in Ceylon, and then he came to this country and he has been practising since in many parts of the Commonwealth without any difficulty at all. Let us make it clear that when he went to Nigeria to represent Chief Awolowo, and was stopped by the immigration officer, it was made quite clear to him that there was nothing against him personally. It was simply that the Government had ruled that no English counsel would be allowed into Nigeria to defend Chief Awolowo.

Does the Home Secretary think that that is a good reason for excluding Mr. Gratiaen now? Does he think that that is covered by the "other and good reasons" phrase in which he pledged his good name to the House? Therefore, we have had from the Home Secretary's admission that he, the Government—the whole lot—always knew all along that these two gentlemen were excluded.

We cannot know with any certainty what the courts would have done if this information had been before them, but surely any objective and fair-minded Member of the House must know in the light of what I have read out that there is a very strong presumption, spelled out in the Lord Chief Justice's own words, that if they had known that these two gentlemen were out they would have thought it would have been oppressive to send Chief Enahoro back into that kind of political atmosphere.

We can say also that when the Home Secretary's affidavit was put before the Divisional Court on 25th April, and he said that he had received satisfactory assurances from the Prime Minister of Nigeria, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich, seeing our Attorney-General there, invited him to make known to the courts the exact terms of the assurance from the Nigerian Prime Minister. That invitation was never re sponded to, and at that time the Attorney-General knew that that assurance specifically excluded Mr. Gratiaen and my hon. and learned Friend.

The Attorney-General (Sir John Hobson)

I have myself no recollection of that point arising at any stage during the course of the proceedings. I did not appear in the first half of the proceedings, but I do not recollect that I was asked to say anything at all to any court in which I appeared about the matter of this undertaking. It was not relevant and did not arise during the course of the proceedings in which I appeared.

Mrs. Castle

It may be that the Attorney-General was not listening very well at that point. I have the assurance from a source I honour, and I intend to stand by it. I suggest that it was counsel for Chief Enahoro who gave the invitation. Perhaps the Attorney-General did not hear it, but, certainly, it was made and, certainly, he sat there knowing that the words "satisfactory assurances" excluded the two counsel who were most in everybody's minds. Furthermore, can we have any doubt what the feeling of the House would have been if we had known beforehand that these two counsel were ruled out?

We have spent a great deal of time, during the course of the case of Chief Enahoro, in asking whether we could trust the good faith of the Nigerian Government, and a number of hon. Members opposite have used as their reason for thinking that Chief Enahoro should be returned to Nigeria the fact that we had no right to throw doubts on the good faith of the Nigerian Government. The Nigerian Government were honest with the Home Secretary. They did not hide it. They told him. They are not to blame for the fact that the right hon. Gentleman did not pass the information. But should we not be applying a system of double standards if, at this moment, when we know that the Nigerian Government told the right hon. Gentleman the truth and we know that the right hon. Gentleman did not tell this House the truth, we did not now roundly condemn the right hon. Gentleman as being unworthy of the standards of honour of an Englishman?

8.38 p.m.

Colonel Sir Tulton Beamish (Lewes)

mean no disrespect whatsoever to the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) when I say that she added very little to the inaccurate and inadequate speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. I should like to say here that I think it is showing considerable disrespect to leave the House after moving a Motion of censure when one speech only—after one's own—has been made. The right hon. Gentleman ought to be here to hear the whole of the debate.

Miss Alice Bacon (Leeds, South East)

The Prime Minister is not here either to hear the speeches on the Motion of censure.

Sir T. Beamish

The Prime Minister did not move the Motion of censure. It makes it rather difficult in a short debate like this for hon. Members who wish to comment on the speech of the Leader of the Opposition if he is not in his place.

I take part in the debate with some reluctance. I should like by way of background to explain that when I had the great privilege of presenting a Mace to the Western Nigerian Government on behalf of this Parliament, Chief Enahoro was the able and friendly Home Secretary in that country. I developed a personal liking and respect for him, and it has, therefore, naturally saddened me greatly that these very grave charges have been brought against him. It is naturally my hope, which I am certain every hon. Member shares with me, that as these cases involving Chief Awolowo, Chief Enahoro and the other defendants develop these men will be found not guilty.

However, having said that, as I have not taken part in the earlier debates, I should like to say that I had no hesitation whotsoever in supporting by right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in the Lobby on three occasions. Naturally, in one's mind the whole time was the feeling that it is absolutely essential—here we can all agree again that Chief Enahoro should be ably represented at his trial and that the trial itself should conform to the very highest standards of British justice. I had every reason to suppose that that would be the case, and I still have every reason for so supposing. I flatly disagree with the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn and the Leader of the Opposition in their statement that had the House of Commons known that the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot) would be barred from defending Chief Enahoro, we would have reached a different decision. I do not believe for one moment that that is so. Of course, I can only speak for myself, but it would not have shaken my confidence one bit in the justice of returning Chief Enahoro to stand trial.

Secondly—and this again is a general point before I deal with more specific matters in relation to this so-called vote of censure—

Mr. MacDermot

Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggesting that he considers there was some good reason for excluding my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot) from Nigeria?

Sir T. Beamish

I shall be touching on that point. As a matter of fact, it is not my business. This is precisely the point that I was coming to. This is a matter for a sovereign country, Nigeria. We can have views about it, of course. We may think the Nigerians made a mistake, but this is a matter for Nigeria and not for the British Government.

One of the things which have been most conspicuous to me during the course of these debates has been the astonishing lack of faith of the party opposite in the Nigerian Government. Hon. Members opposite do not seem to understand that one of the fundamental principles of the British Commonwealth is that there should be mutual respect between two sovereign countries within the Commonwealth. Some of them seem to think that although Nigeria is no longer run by Whitehall, it is run by Transport House. I detect a patronising attitude among hon. Members opposite, which I greatly regret. I believe it is true that the very friendly relations which we enjoy with Nigeria have been seriously strained by some of the grave misstatements made by right hon. and hon. Members opposite in the course of these debates. I very much regret that fact, and the sooner relations can be cemented again the happier I shall be.

I take it that it is not in question, therefore, that Nigeria has a sovereign right to declare the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich persona non grata. Whether the reasons of the Nigerian Government are good or bad, so far as this case is concerned, is irrelevant. I propose to show why in a moment.

I think, however, that it is worth asking this question. Bearing in mind the fact that the hon. and learned Gentleman was declared persona non grata, was it remotely likely that a newly-independent country, justifiably very proud in its new status, would change a decision of this kind under pressure from its former Imperial masters? Does any hon. Member seriously think that under pressure from the party opposite this decision would be changed? I think the answer is clearly, "No".

Also we should clearly recognise that the defence of Chief Enahoro has not been prejudiced by reason of the fact that the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich, with all his qualities as a barrister, which I recognise, is not able to go to defend him. As I understand it, there are 1,800 barristers in England and Wales from whom he can choose and a great many of them are men of very rare ability, who are fully capable of giving him the highest quality form of defence. Therefore, it is not true that his defence has been prejudiced. Therefore, I ask this question: why all the fuss?

Mr. Paget

rose—

Sir T. Bearish

With great respect, I should like to get on. There is not a great deal of time. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will probably find that I shall be covering his point.

The Leader of the Opposition, reading from a letter from Chief Enahoro's solicitors, quoted these words: Enahoro never had any other counsel in mind"— speaking of the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich. This raises in my mind the question, did the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich, knowing that he was to be the lawyer for the defence, ask whether, since it mattered so much, he would be allowed to enter Nigeria, being persona non grata? If he did not ask, why not? If he asked and got no answer, was not he suspicious that he might be refused entry? If he was told "No", why not tell the House?

Mr. Thorpe

Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggest that the undertaking given by the Home Secretary would have permitted of any ambiguity so that there would be doubt in anyone's mind about whether he would be admitted?

Sir T. Beamish

I am simply saying that, if the hon. and learned Gentleman and the Opposition attach such enormous importance to this question, considering that the hon. and learned Gentleman must defend Chief Enahoro if he is to be properly defended, why did not the hon. and learned Gentleman himself, as the man who knew he was to be the lawyer for the defence, find out whether he would be permitted to enter the country? Why was not this argument used earlier by the Opposition? If they thought that it was a material point, why did they not bring it up at any stage during the debate? I find this difficult to understand.

Mr. Paget

rose—

Mr. Leslie Hale (Oldham, West)

If the hon. and gallant Gentleman is asking—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston)

Order. There must not be three hon. Members on their feet at the same time. Does the hon. and gallant Member give way to anyone?

Sir T. Beamish

I would rather not give way, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, because the debate is to be a short one.

Mr. Hale

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it in order, if the hon. and gallant Member has given way, for the Chair to rise and advise him not to give way?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The hon. and gallant Member had not given way.

Mr. Hale

On a further point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Have not the last five minutes of this discussion dealing with Chief Enahoro and what was said or not said in previous debates been quite irrelevant to the question why the right hon. Gentleman deliberately deceived the House?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I have heard nothing irrelevant.

Sir T. Beamish

I am sorry that these facts should be so unpalatable to the party opposite. Hon. and right hon. Members opposite have made a lot of misstatements during the course of our various debates, and I see no reason why they should not be answered.

Mr. George Lawson (Motherwell)

Why ask questions and then not give way?

Sir T. Beamish

I am asking questions for the simple purpose of giving an opportunity for them to be answered during the debate. This is not Question Time. I wish it were. I should be very happy to answer a few questions.

When the Home Secretary made his very carefully worded statement on 14th March, including the words that entry would not be refused to any barrister unless in his particular case there were other and good reasons …" —[OFFICIAL REPORT. 14th March. 1963; Vol. 673, c. 1542.] I fully understood from this that the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich and Mr. Gratiaen were likely to be refused entry, if not certain to be refused entry. That was my immediate reaction on hearing those words; otherwise, it seemed to me that they meant just about nothing. I thought that the words used were very simple and that anyone who could understand plain English, without reading between the lines, must have known what they clearly implied.

Mr. Percy Collick (Birkenhead)

Deliberate deception.

Sir T. Beamish

The Home Secretary himself, thinking that the Nigerian Government might be unlikely to be prepared to accept the hon. and learned Gentlman and Mr. Gratiaen, asked whether this was so, in order to confirm it, and he was told, as he has said in the House, in confidence—those words were not mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition—that any lawyer from this country would be permitted to go to Nigeria except the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich or Mr. Gratiaen.

Mr. Colfick

Why did he not tell the House?

Sir T. Bearnish

I assume that he did not tell the House because he was told in confidence, and I take it that he thought that that meant that he was not to divulge the information which he was given. I assume that that is what "in confidence" means.

Why were the Opposition silent, if they were so concerned about this matter? Why did they not ask for a specific assurance, if they thought that it mattered so much that the hon. and learned Gentleman should be permitted to go to Nigeria to defend Chief Enahoro? Was it because the Opposition were naive? I do not think so. Was it that they were being stupid? I do not think so. Was it that they were being rather cunning? I think that that may be the answer. Did they want to keep the whole thing up their sleeve so that they could make another personal attack on my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary behind a smoke-screen of synthetic moral indignation?

Was it because after weeks of discussing a Budget which they could not fail to admire they needed a new stick with which to beat the Government, and they kept this stick up their sleeves ready to whip it out when the opportunity arose, protesting all the time that they had been deceived? But the stick was a rotten one, and the blow aimed at my right hon. Friend has missed him, and the Opposition have simply hit themselves on the shins.

If the Opposition have been deceived, they have been guilty of serious self-deception. Nobody has deceived them. least of all my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. He is widely recognised as one of the most honourable and candid men who have been in politics for many a year. I frankly do not believe that any Member of the House in his heart of hearts believes him to be otherwise. I say again that on this matter my right hon. Friend has deceived absolutely nobody. If the Opposition feel they have been deceived, they have deceived themselves.

It is quite possible to argue that my right hon. Friend could be criticised for a certain lack of clarity and firmness at the earlier stages of this affair, though I think that it would be a difficult charge to sustain. I think that many people would be more likely to share my view that such an important and complex matter as this had to have the very fullest and most thorough consideration, on both the political and legal sides. The decision my right hon. Friend had to reach had to be reached with humanity as well as with full knowledge of all the problems involved. I am sure that my right hon. Friend has suffered considerable agony of mind during the whole of this unhappy business.

It is quite possible to argue what I have just stated, but it is quite impossible, in my opinion, to argue, without one's tongue firmly in one's party political cheek, that the Home Secretary has been builty of bad faith, of which he was accused by the Leader of the Opposition, that he has been guilty of dishonest behaviour, of which he has also been accused, that he has done something discreditable, of which he was also accused by the Leader of the Opposition, or that he deliberately concealed vital facts, as was suggested by the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn. None of these things can possibly be sustained. I believe them all to be totally untrue.

Why, then, does the Motion of censure against my right hon. Friend stand on the Order Paper? I believe that it is the Opposition who should be facing such a Motion of censure for their lack of judgment in this matter. They should be facing a Motion of censure themselves for trying to make cheap party capital out of a thoroughly unhappy issue. They should be facing a Motion of censure themselves for trying to make party capital out of something which should have nothing whatsoever to do with party politics. They should be facing a Motion of censure also for trying for party ends to blacken the character of a thoroughly honourable man.

8.53 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale (Oldham, West)

Mr. Deputy-Speaker, without for a moment questioning your wisdom in permitting this debate to range over a wide field, permitting submit that we have gone some distance from the question before the House, which is whether the Home Secretary is deserving of confidence after having deliberately deceived the House

To that, the Home Secretary from time to time has pleaded guilty. Indeed, it was an astonishing thing that in the course of tonight's debate the Home Secretary made a quite casual reference —an offhand reference—to the fact that he thinks that he did make a mistake in the last period of questioning on 23rd May.

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked this question: 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? The Home Secretary answered in this way: No, Sir. I know of no such conversations." — [OFFICIAL. REPORT, 23rd May, 1963; Vol. 678, c. 634.] Now the Home Secretary says that he thought he was referring to a very special type of conversation when he said— I know of no such conversations. There must be a point at which one is entitled to question whether the right hon. Gentleman is taking an attitude in face of these charges of the type which is normally put forward by an unintelligent criminal in mitigation of a charge, "I did not really mean it. These words do not have that sort of meaning. I had not got this in mind. I had not got that in mind."

But, basically, we are discussing tonight what we are now to apply to the House of Commons, which has normally managed to live fairly happily together, in which a Member's word is accepted, in which a Member's statement is accepted, in which normally—I say in my own experience, whether of a Tory or a Labour Minister, for I have only had those two sorts of Ministers to deal with—it a Minister makes me a promise I always accept it. Until a few months ago that had always been so. I have always regarded a conversation or an engagement in this House as meaning an undertaking had been given.

But this, of course, is the classic theory of Machiavelli: the bigger you are the more right you have to deceive; if you can get away with it, it is a measure of success; if it is essential to one's well-being or to the well-being of the Government of the State, one is justified in doing it.

In my right hon. Friend's very brilliant speech today there was one point which, I think, he did not make. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) did. I want to repeat it in just another form. Everyone will understand that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has had a rather rough passage during the course of the last few months on this matter. No one would be very much surprised if, in the course of an excited controversial comment, a statement had slipped through which had got, perhaps, a misleading adjective, or a misleading connotation; but there are two quotations my right hon. Friend particularly referred to today as of 21st March, and he carefully referred to them, and they were quotations of a precise restatement of the words which the right hon. Gentleman had used on 14th March.

On 14th March the right hon. Gentleman was not coming to take part in debate; he was reading a formal written statement prepared in his Department, reading it carefully at that Box, and saying, "This is the statement which I ask the leave of the House to make." He went further, because having given the undertaking which has been stated so often I shall not repeat it, he then added this: I thought it essential to ensure that there should be no misunderstanding between Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the Nigerian Government with regard to the meaning of the undertaking given on that Government's instructions. The right hon. Gentleman thought it essential that there should be no misunderstanding. He then said: I have, therefore, been in touch through our High Commissioner in Lagos …" — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th March, 1963; Vol. 673, c. 1543.] The right hon. Gentleman knows the High Commissioner of Lagos well, and they should both be acquainted with Parliamentary procedure. The High Commissioner in Lagos knew that he was now obtaining an undertaking which had got to be given to the House of Commons.

The right hon. Gentleman says quite vaguely—he has never elaborated a single word of this—"I was told something in confidence." Who by? By the High Commissioner in Lagos? It was stated by the Home Secretary to the Attorney-General in confidence—or rather to all the other members of the Government in confidence—and it could not be mentioned to the House?

Mr. Thorpe

It would have been discourteous to have done so.

Mr. Hale

It would have been discourteous to have mentioned anyone by name.

I appreciate that it is getting late. If my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) gives me the slightest indication of what time he desires to rise I will make way, for I should not like for a mement to trespass on his time. I should, however, like to say this. It may seem irrelevant, but two years ago a very distinguished member of the Bar was brought before the Bar Council on a grave charge and he was temporarily disbarred or suspended— [Interruption.] What time?

Sir Frank Soskice (Newport)

Twenty minutes past nine.

Mr. Hale

However irregularly it may seem to have been done, this interruption was for the convience of the House, and because of my desire not to intrude upon my right hon. Friend's time.

A very distinguished member of the Bar—Mr. Victor Durand—was brought before the Bar Council on what it obviously regarded as a serious charge. What Mr. Durand had done was to address an officer as "Inspector" when he knew that he had been reduced to sergeant. I do not want to mislead hon. Members who do not recollect the facts. The offence was much more serious than that. It was said that he had done this fraudulently to deceive, because the honesty of this officer was relevant to the whole facts before the jury, and that by using this simple device he had concealed from the jury the fact that the officer had been tried for an offence of dishonesty and reduced in rank. He therefore managed to convey a false impression.

Mr. MacDermot

He called him "Mister".

Mr. Hale

Did he? Well, call me "Madam".

But Mr. Durand went further. It was said that in the course of conference with his solicitors they said that he should not have done it, and his attention was called to the fact that it was undesirable to do that. Mr. Durand—this counsel of great distinction and eminence—was suspended from practice for two years. That was a very severe sentence, and very nearly a sentence of deprivation and financial ruin.

On what charge? On a charge that is well understood. On a charge that is well known. On a charge of one of two forms of fraud. The law knows only two, either as tort or as fraud—suggestio falsi suppressio veri—the deliberate distortion of the facts to convey a false impression, or the deliberate concealment of some material for the same end.

When the Home Secretary read out his prepared statement, and when he knew that he had been told relevant facts, which had to be kept in confidence, is he saying that the Nigerian Government did not want the situation made crystal clear? Does he really say that?

I have no gift for denunciation. I do not want to overpaint the picture. I take the view that the only person one is entitled to criticise on moral grounds is oneself—and there I find ample scope for that exercise. This is not a question of criticising the Home Secretary, against whom I have no venom or bitterness. This is a question of the life of the House of Commons. When I read this statement through, in the light of what has since transpired, I turned, as did my right hon. Friend, to the statement of the Attorney-General, and I read it through again.

It was apparently a clear and unequivocal statement. But once one has got into this suspicion of mind and realises that this sort of thing can happen in the House of Commons one reads the statement through again, and reads: It is entirely a matter for him to choose by whom he prefers to be represented and then, For that reason alone, the Home Secretary thought it necessary to clarify that matter. Then one thinks to oneself that the Attorney-General could not have said this unless he was misled by the Home Secretary, and then that the Home Secretary could not have concealed this undertaking from the Attorney-General, and one wonders whether there is any little quibble in it which might have been put through with the deliberate intent to deceive. What was said, again: It was thought necessary to secure that to see that he would have the counsel of his choice. Her Majesty's Government had no interest at all in seeing whether he had a Nigerian or a British counsel. It is entirely a matter for him to choose by whom he prefers to be represented." — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 2Ist March, 1963; Vol. 674, c. 678.] There is the qualification, contained in words from all those qualified. It is no defence to a charge that something was done with intention to mislead to say that certain words, in one of their meanings, could convey a different impression.

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked whether any hon. Members really now challenged the fact that they understood the words in the way they were understood by the courts, by this House, by the Press and by Chief Enahoro himself. No one has done so.

When I think of my happy association with the Attorney-General on the Royal Commission on the Police, and of the respect and affection I have for him, I find it difficult to reach a conclusion either way. It is very difficult, however, not to think that these words could have been included only after some thought and realisation that they were equivocal and that they would involve some measure of deceit.

I say to the hon. and learned Gentleman that there is a precedent for this, set by another Attorney-General, This was when Sir Rufus Isaacs got up and said, "I declare unequivocally that, so far as the company is concerned, whether they were 14s. or £9, never owned one share". That statement was true, because Sir Rufus Isaacs was referring to the British Marconi Company. But he did not go on to add that he had bought many thousands of shares from his brother in the American Marconi Company.

A Select Committee and years of scandal followed that piece of deceit. Sir Rufus was a distinguished man and a great tribune, but his character never recovered from that statement. No doubt it was made with lack of judgment. No doubt he meant to repair his words before the Select Committee. But the statement was on record.

Thinking this over, I had a feeling that somewhere there was a classic example of this sort of thing and of the harm it may do. I recalled the case of Saccho and Vanzetti. The prosecution was trying to secure a conviction against these two men who, by force of character, had impressed many people with their innocence, although there was undoubtedly considerable evidence against them.

There was the ballistics expert who was commander of the local police. He said, "I cannot swear that this bullet came from Saccho's revolver". So they evolved a simple formula. He went into the witness box and said that the bullet was consistent with having come from Saccho's revolver. He was known as a fairly honest "cop", and because that simple statement was made no one questioned it, no one cross-examined him about it. Defence counsel thought that questions might strengthen the witness. Years later, when this man lay dying, the matter was on his conscience. He made a revelation of the whole of the facts. But that did not save Saccho and Vanzetti. They had gone to the electric chair on that evidence.

There is a danger in the case that we are now considering. There is, I think, a danger that sometimes we are departing from the standards of honesty and sincerity that were operating in this country fifty years ago. I cannot believe, although I dislike saying it, that, on the evidence, there has not been a clear determination by the Home Secretary to conceal relevant facts in the case of Chief Enahoro with the intention of deceiving this House, and that he is not guilty as charged by the Motion of censure.

9.9 p.m.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke (Isle of Ely)

Unlike the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), I shall not suggest by innuendo that there was anything deliberate if the House was misled by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I consider that I was misled, but I certainly exonerate my right hon. Friend from any intention deliberately to mislead me.

There is one aspect of this case of which we have tended to lose sight, not only in this but in previous debates on Chief Enahoro. Our main object has been to ensure not only that justice was done to an individual, in so far as we had control of that justice, but also that it was seen to be done and that its doing did not cause any unnecessary dispute between another member of the Commonwealth and ourselves.

But that was looking at the matter purely from our own point of view in this country and in this House. Let us for a moment consider it from the point of view of the Nigerian Government As my right hon. Friend said, the charges upon which Chief Enahoro was due to appear in Nigeria were very grave and affected the safety of that State. Indeed, if the charges laid against Chief Awolowo and Chief Enahoro and 30 others were proved, we might find from the evidence produced that from the Western Region of Nigeria there spread a wild fire of conflagration which might eventually have led to the complete destruction of the Federation. It is conceivable, and one can well understand the Nigerian Government have a rather different attitude from ours.

I have felt it my duty to be satisfied on two points. First, I wanted to be absolutely satisfied not only that the court in Nigeria was impeccable in its conduct—and I have no doubt at all about that and I am certain that the reputation of the Nigerian judiciary is impeccable—but, secondly, that the evidence which would be brought before that court would have been properly obtained, and that evidence would not be deliberately withheld from that court by means which would not be tolerable in a civilised State. About the latter I am not satisfied. It was for that reason above all that I abstained in the only two Divisions which we have had on this issue.

This debate has been directed by the Opposition as a personal attack upon my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and yet, even while the Leader of the Opposition was speaking, an attempt was being made to spread it to the Attorney-General. That attempt has been repeated by the hon. Member for Oldham, West and by the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle).

Any attempt to place upon my right hon. Friend sole responsibility for all this is totally misdirected. It is perfectly true that he has very honourably tried to take sole responsibility for this decision the whole way through. That speaks all the tribute necessary to the very high reputation which he has and to the very high tradition which his office has. He has always been a very courageous man. He has always stuck absolutely firmly to his decision once he has made up his mind, and we all know that he takes great pains about making up his mind.

I would say to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that before we castigate one individual member of Her Majesty's Government too much, we might ponder for a moment or two what burden of responsibility my right hon. Friend has had to bear. He himself indicated some of the strain which this must have been upon him, and I do not under-estimate its measure.

However, I ask my right hon. Friend one question. I ask it having studied only the Press reports of what happened in the courts, particularly in January when Enahoro was before the Divisional Court. My right hon. Friend has told us today for the first time that, some time in April, he did consult the Lord Chief Justice and obtained from the Lord Chief Justice an assurance that his understanding in the court had been the same of my right hon. Friend's understanding of the assurance which had been given by the Nigerian Government. My reading of that assurance—having studied what was said in the courts as well as what was said in the debates in this House—was that although the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot) and Mr. Gratiaen had been, the one expelled and the other refused entry into Nigeria in respect of other actions, from that moment onwards, after the assurance was given in the case of Enahoro, both these reservations had been removed.

I am no lawyer, and it may be perfectly clear from the speech I am now making that I am not, but neither is the vast majority of the hon. Members of this House. Neither are all our constituents. I think that most people in this country—I put it no stronger than that—as a result of what was said about the assurance coming from the Nigerian Government, came to the conclusion that it meant that Chief Enahoro could have any British counsel to defend him that he liked. I do not think this is a matter in which we ought to play with words. I think that we ought to be quite clear about what we all thought at the time. I am saying only what I thought. My belief is that many other people thought it too. It was certainly what I thought at the time.

What I find quite impossible to understand—this is the question which I wish to put to my right hon. Friend—is why when at one moment it could be argued that everybody knew—especially, apparently, the courts knew and the Government knew—that in fact the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich and Mr. Gratiaen would be debarred, should they attempt to go to Nigeria to defend Chief Enahoro, the Nigerian Government apparently swore Her Majesty's Government to secrecy over this matter. I find this quite impossible to understand.

I have listened most carefully to every speech and every word which has been said in this debate. I have still heard no answer on this particular issue. I ask my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to put us right on this. I feel that if in fact the impression was given—I have no doubt at all that it was given to many people; it was certainly given to me—that Chief Enahoro was to have whom he liked, and that in fact the public knowledge of the expelling of the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich and the barring of Mr. Gratiaen from Nigeria was no longer relevant, why on earth all the secrecy? We really must be clear on this.

1 know that the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) wishes to speak at twenty minutes past nine, and so I will sit down; hut, in conclusion I wish to say that I do not blame the Home Secretary for this misunderstanding. I regard it as a collective Government decision. Because of this I think that this Motion of censure is totally misdirected. It is not fair on my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to pin the responsibility on him.

This is a collective responsibility of the whole Government. For that reason, I must say that I cannot possibly support the Motion of censure. But I must also say that, having abstained in the two previous Divisions, I feel that now I could not possibly support the Government in the Division Lobby tonight, for the very good reason that I feel that I have not entirely agreed with their policy about Chief Enahoro from the very beginning—for reasons which I hope they will respect as I respect their reasons for not agreeing with me.

Therefore, I feel that all I can do again tonight, grievous though it be to me, is to abstain.

9.20 p.m.

Mr. George Brown (Belper)

I think that the whole House will respect the sincerity, the force and power of the speech we have just heard from the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke). The part in which he thought it wrong of us to censure the Minister who has to carry the responsibility I confess I did not quite understand. In the light of what he said subsequently, I was not sure whether he thought that we should censure the entire Government or the one man who has to carry personal responsibility. That point apart, speaking for myself, and not for the first time, I respect tremendously the sincerity of the hon. Member.

I am sure that other hon. Members, like myself, have noticed the ironic fact that today, the day when we discuss one more episode in the case of Chief Enahoro, is the anniversary of the passing in 1647 of the Habeas Corpus Act. The Government ought to think a little about what they are doing throughout this whole procedure in relation to that honourable, traditional and proud Act of our ancestors a long time ago. I am sure that they must have in mind now what a grim road they have trodden since they first started interfering with and perverting the ordinary course of justice for purely political reasons. They have been led on— [An HON. MEMBER: "Come off it."] I have listened in silence to everyone else who has spoken. If I am not accorded the same courtesy, the Prime Minister will have to share the reduction of time.

The Government, step by step, have been interfering with what ought to happen. They have now reached a position where the Home Secertary, as everyone must have felt in the House this afternoon, was on the thinnest possible ground. This is not another debate about Chief Enahoro. That unhappy man, in prison because of yet another misunderstanding in the Home Office, is merely the vehicle which has led our Administration to get themselves into trouble and into difficulty with the traditions of our land. We are censuring Ministers today. We are censuring the Minister who has to carry the personal responsibility.

We are censuring the Home Secretary, and, through him, his colleagues, for their attitude towards the courts of justice of this land and towards the High Court of Parliament. The Home Secretary ended his speech by saying that he thought we were making a mountain out of a foothill. That made me feel once again how little touch he has for, how little feeling he has for, the traditions of this House. He has given four reasons for his view, four reasons why it was a mountain made out of a foothill to censure him for withholding from this House and the courts of justice information which was relevant to the decision which we have to make.

The first was that he had not been specifically asked. Is this now the Conservative definition of a Minister's—or, indeed, any honourable man's—duty to tell what he is asked only when he is asked it, to suppress everything else that is relevant until he is asked it? As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) said, that would certainly have let out those involved in the Marconi scandal, but I do not remember the Conservative Party accepting that.

Why was the Home Secretary not asked? Here the Attorney-General has to come in. It may be that the Minister who winds up a debate, as the Home Secretary said, does not repeat all that the opener of the debate says, but the one who answers the debate answers the questions which have been raised in it. The Attorney-General said, "The point has been raised" and went on in categorical terms—not qualified as the Home Secretary said we were supposed to understand, but in categorical terms—to say that Chief Enahoro should have the counsel of his choice. There was no qualification there at all.

We still want to know—perhaps the Prime Minister will try his hand at this—the answer to this question: did the Attorney-General know when he told us that the Home Secretary's understanding was that the undertaking excluded the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot) and Mr. Gratiaen? If the Attorney-General knew, then he was deliberately deceiving; if he did not know, then the Home Secretary was not even telling his colleagues, let alone anybody else.

The second reason that the Home Secretary gave was that it would have been discourteous to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich. What did he mean by that? My hon. and learned Friend was not excluded from Nigeria for any shameful reason. What did the Home Secretary intend to convey? My hon. and learned Friend was excluded for one reason only, that he had gone to Nigeria to defend Chief Awolowo. Therefore, his exclusion on that ground was wholly relevant to the argument as to whether he would be excluded on this ground.

Why would it have been discourteous? On the contrary, it would have been absolutely relevant. Indeed, the immigration officer who stopped Mr. Gratiaen from entering actually said that he was forbidden to allow any counsel to enter from London to represent Chief Awolowo or any of the accused—remember that this was the same trial—and that there was nothing personal, Why did not the Home Secretary make it clear that the undertaking meant that this was to apply in the case of Chief Enahoro as in the case of the other accused?

The Home Secretary's ground was that he had the information on a confidential basis. I agree with the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely that this is the most extraordinary thing of all. How can the Nigerians pledge to secrecy in this House our own Government when we are debating this matter? I can well understand the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations bending over backwards, and I understand why. But it is time that Lagos was told that this House, this ancient people here, have their democratic rights, too. They cannot pledge our Government to secrecy on an issue which is wholly relevant to a decision that we have to take in defence of traditions that are centuries old. But I am not at all sure whether the Home Secretary meant it when he said it, because all the way through he kept on saying that everybody knew. If everybody knew, what was so confidential about it as to stop him saying it? Never has a man tried to defend himself on every count at once.

I am a layman, too, but I am extremely interested in our legal processes. We heard this extraordinary story of the conference, which the right hon. Gentleman forgot until today, which took place between him and the Lord Chief Justice. We ask what was the consultation about. Who sought it? The undertaking written in the Divisional Court was, as we know from subsequent proceedings, an undertaking drafted by the Lord Chief Justice himself—although the courts do not say "drafted"; their expression is "words which fell from the Lord Chief Justice's lips".

We know that that undertaking was the Lord Chief Justice's. Did he ask the Home Secretary to come to see him to find out whether the Home Secretary clearly understood what he intended by this undertaking, or did the Home Secretary go to the Lord Chief Justice to ask him what the undertaking meant? If the latter, did the Home Secretary tell the Lord Chief Justice that he understood from the Nigerian Government that the undertaking did not cover my hon. and learned Friend and Mr. Gratiaen? Did he tell the Lord Chief Justice?

Hon. Members

Answer.

Mr. Brown

We shall listen with great interest to the Prime Minister to hear whether that was what the Home Secretary did.

If one looks at the extract, one understands what the Lord Chief Justice was worried about. He was specifically worried about the fact that counsel had been excluded from the previous stages of the trial and he was suggesting an undertaking to prevent the same thing happening again. Did the Home Secretary make the Lord Chief Justice privy to the fact that he had a confidential understanding that the undertaking did not cover them? I will return to this presently.

I turn, meanwhile, to the Home Secretary's fourth point. He said that the courts had decided this issue, so he had no need to tell the House of Commons. How did the courts decide it? They decided it, first, in the absence of this very information. They decided it, secondly, when told in the affidavit something that seemed to be quite different, and they decided, thirdly, only after the most specific undertaking appeared to have been wrung out of the Nigerian Government's Attorney-General.

I commend to any right hon. and hon. Members who are voting tonight a study of the proceedings before the Appeal Committee of another place. I wish that I could read it all. It is the most telling. destructive document of all that the Home Secretary said to us this evening. I will begin at the part where counsel for the Nigerian Government is answering a question about what counsel Chief Enahoro will be allowed. He says: There is absolutely nothing to prevent any counsel, if this petitioner wishes him, to make the application in the proper way according to that Act, and the Chief Justice will consider it and give his certificate or not. LORD REID: Yes, but then look at the last line of it. It is perfectly satisfactory up to the point when the Chief Justice gives authority for the counsel to represent the accused; but then all the undertaking is that the authorised counsel will not be refused on the ground merely that he is to take part in this trial. If it had been said that the authorised counsel would be permitted to enter once the authority had been given by the Chief Justice, that would have been wholly satisfactory. But how do we know he will not be prevented from entry on some other ground altogether? MR. HUTCHINSON:… These words were suggested and agreed to in the hearing before the Divisional Court. He was speaking for the Nigerian Government. I was perfectly prepared to use any words which were agreed by my learned friend"— that is, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich— and which the Lord Chief Justice thought were proper. LORD REID: May I take it that the substance of the undertaking is that, if the Chief Justice authorises the appearance at this trial of some counsel"— not an English or a Nigerian counsel, which was the point the Home Secretary tried to take this afternoon— entry of that counsel into Nigeria will not be prohibited on any ground? MR. HUTCHINSON: I do not think I could give that undertaking, because all sorts of things might happen between the Chief Justice giving his certificate and the person arriving, as the Lord Chief Justice pointed out, with smallpox. …What I am saying is that there might be some ground which does not come into one's mind now whereby the counsel… The date is 6th February. We were told this afternoon that the Home Secretary knew it in January. On 6th February counsel for the Nigerian Government said: …there might be some ground which does not come into one's mind now … As if that were not all, what do we find at the very end of the passage from which I am quoting? The whole document is worth reading if one really wants to see how we are being misled, even today. We find that Lord Morris said that, according to the affidavit, the reason was that he, the immigration officer in the case of Mr. Gratiaen, had …orders ' to refuse entry to any lawyer arriving from England in order to represent any accused person'"… — including Chief Enahoro— 'in connection with the trial of Chief Awolowo and others.' Was your undertaking intended fully to meet that point? We find the answer from Mr. Hutchinson to be: That was indeed the purpose of it. The word ' merely 'was inserted because there might well be reasons which, the court would appreciate, fell quite outside the question of the trial which would be all the normal reasons, if I could use that word, for a Government to refuse entry to an individual which they must keep to themselves but in relation to this trial made it abundantly clear that no such counsel would be refused. I ask any hon. and right hon. Members opposite who heard the Home Secretary's speech this afternoon to square his speech with the statement I have just read and which was made in the court.

We were not only misled before today. The Home Secretary was misleading us this afternoon. The counsel I have quoted was the counsel for the Nigerian Government—and he did not say any of the things which the Home Secretary trumped up this afternoon. All this makes absolute nonsense of the Home Secretary's assertion that the court was interested only in whether it was an English or a Nigerian barrister and that it was not interested in whether it was a particular barrister.

It is perfectly clear that Lord Reid was trying to make sure that the position of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich and Mr. Gratiaen was covered by the undertaking which the Lord Chief Justice had drafted. The whole history of this thing, from the day the man arrived thinking that he had assurances which were subsequently dishonoured, the objection to bail— [HON. MEMBERS "No."] Yes, and the Home Secretary's statements in the House about bail; the whole way in which the final appeal was rushed through, the Home Secretary's power in that; the final stages of his being refused permission to see his solicitor on the evening when we were finally debating it in the House; his being refused a clean shirt when one was offered to him at the gates, after the Home Office had been consulted, to his finally being taken away in handcuffs—the whole wretched, grim story has reeked of deception and the misleading of the House right the way through.

The Attorney-General and his telephone call must be considered. The right hon. Gentleman knows that it was his Government who brought in the Act which gave Nigeria her Constitution; that the Nigerian Constitution is part of British law; that in the Nigerian Constitution the Attorney-General does not decide what charges are laid; that the Director of Public Prosecutions is specifically excluded from any pressure from the Attorney-General; that the telephone conversation, as I suggested at the time, was as irrelevant to what we were discussing as was all the rest of the misleading nonsense we have heard.

I ask the House to join with us, either in censuring the Minister, or, if some hon. Members feel that that would not be easy for them, to abstain. I am told that the Prime Minister has come here to defend the Home Secretary. I must say that that strikes me as though Dickens—or Lionel Bart—had written a new scene into "Oliver", where Fagan defends on behalf of the Artful Dodger.

9.42 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan)

This debate is yet another in the long series of debates about Chief Enahoro. Although the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition stated that we were not here to debate the episode generally, he was, I thought, rather disingenuous, for he introduced into the beginning of his speech, and carried on through it, a number of observations attacking the action of the British Government and of the Government of Nigeria throughout. This was repeated by the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown). I therefore make no apology for making certain references to the matter as a whole.

Perhaps I may recall to the House—{Interruption.] Yes, I made some notes after the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition had spoken, or I knew what he intended to say. The House has discussed this matter on, I think, no less than three occasions, and at different stages. First, there was an argument, if I recall it, that the Fugitive Offenders Act was itself inappropriate, and ought no longer to govern the conduct of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in making decisions.

The underlying thought of that argument was really that what might have been suitable to the earlier conditions, when the Commonwealth consisted of European Dominions or British Colonial Governors was no longer appropriate to the Commonwealth of today. As I said before to the House, I think that the argument of the inappropriateness of the Fugitive Offenders Act is highly insulting to the new Commonwealth countries. Although it is true that there may, by agreement, be some amendment of it, it is the Act, and we ought not unilaterally to go beyond it or outside it.

It certainly cannot be argued that the machinery of our courts has not been fully employed, for the matter was brought up in the Divisional Court and the Appeal Committee of the House of Lords and on applications for habeas corpus on no less than three occasions, and when the right hon. Member for Belper refers to the removal of the Chief at the end, that is because, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, applications for a writ of habeas corpus can be made indefinitely. Therefore, after the last decision, it was then important to deport the Chief. Some of the highest judges in the land have been engaged on the case, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has been careful to explain throughout how he proposed to exercise his final discretion.

The right hon. Gentleman himself referred to the next stage. In our previous debates it was suggested that it was unjust to send the Chief back to stand trial in Nigeria because, it was said, it would not be a fair trial—[Interruption.]That was argued throughout. All through these debates it has been argued that if Chief Enahoro were returned he might, by a curious twist, be condemned upon a capital charge. The Leader of the Opposition referred to the whole question.

Mr. H. Wilson

rose—

The Prime Minister

No.

The most insulting suggestion of all was that, having been got back on one charge, he would be tried upon another. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, that was the whole basis of our discussion. The right hon. Gentleman said that the whole story threw great discredit upon the British Government. Therefore, it is he who has brought up these matters from the start. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, he said so, but our belief is that in point of fact Chief Enahoro has been brought up and is being tried precisely on the charges on which he was sent back and on no other charge. The right hon. Member for Belper again attacked today the behaviour of the Nigerian Government. He said that it was time that they learned in Lagos how to behave.

Mr. G. Brown

rose—

Hon. Members

Sit down.

Mr. Brown

On a point of order. May I claim a point of order, Mr. Speaker? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The Prime Minister said that I said today that "it was time that they in Lagos learned how to behave." That is totally untrue.

Mr. Speaker

It may be, but even if it is, it raises no point of order. I hope that the House will debate this properly. We have done fairly well so far.

Mr. Brown

The Prime Minister knows that it is untrue.

The Prime Minister

The Opposition have made attacks upon the Nigerian Government which I think are quite unworthy.

Mr. Brown

This is quite outrageous.

The Prime Minister

I cannot believe that any hon. or right hon. Member who might be called upon to be Ministers in the Government of this country would so treat a new Commonwealth country. I only hope that the decisions of the Government and the decisions of the House up to now will have done something to restore the good feeling between us and Nigeria which we greatly value. I think that the Nigerian Government are sensible of the fact that the British Government felt so strongly about it that we were willing even to risk our own fortunes to do our duty by the Commonwealth.

Having lost on every other count, the Opposition now produce a charge against my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. They charge him with misleading the House of Commons. It was the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, who moved the Motion, who deceived the House of Commons. He rested a very great part of his arguments upon an affidavit. They seem to be absolutely nuts on affidavits on the benches opposite. This was paraded as the great basis of the right hon. Gentleman's argument and his charge against my right hon. Friend. I am bound to say that for a moment I was rather impressed by the affidavit, but then I found out that this affidavit was one made right at the end of the proceedings in the normal course of the final stages, not in connection with this question at all but with the second of the habeas corpus applications.

Yet the right hon. Gentleman attempted to persuade the House—and he looked very upset when he was found to be wrong—that phrases in this affidavit had materially affected the judgment of the Divisional Court and the Appeal Committee in the months of January and February. But, in fact, this was not made till April and in these particular proceedings the Home Secretary was not represented at all.

I am bound to say—and I think all hon. Members will agree—that a charge of bad faith or of misleading the House falls very badly when it is made against my right hon. Friend. He has answered the charge completely today.

Everyone knows that it is not a right of an English counsel to appear in a Nigerian court. It is a privilege. That privilege is very often given and sometimes refused.

When the point was raised before the High Court, counsel for the Nigerian Government was asked to give an undertaking that if the Chief were to choose a counsel from England entitled to appear in the Nigerian court, the Government would not refuse him permission to land merely because he was coming to represent the Chief. That was the argument. It was only upon that point that the courts or my right hon. Friend had to be satisfied.

It is alleged—I do not know whether it is true or not—that that was the sole reason why the two counsel concerned had been refused. If that is so, it was all the more important to ensure that no counsel would be refused merely on the ground that he came to defend the Chief. If it were, true—which I do not know; it is said to be so—that the counsel had been refused on that sole ground before. then indeed it was important to ensure that there would not be an automatic bar against anyone who came to appear for the Chief.

It was only upon that point that my right hon. Friend quite properly consulted the Lord Chief Justice; it was only upon the point as to whether the court was satisfied and we were all satisfied that he would not be refused English counsel by the mere process of refusing one after another until finally none was available. But it was well known that long before even this case was raised concerning Chief Enahoro, one of the counsel concerned had been sent away from Nigeria and had been declared persona non grata and the other had not been allowed to land. Since then, to prove the good faith of the Nigerian Government, a third counsel. I think coming from the same chambers, has in fact landed to defend the Chief. Therefore, that proves that the Nigerian Government carried out absolutely rigorously what they undertook to do.

It is said that nobody understood that. My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir FL Legge-Bourke), who always speaks with the greatest sincerity in this House, said that he did not understand this. I am quite sure the court understood it. I am quite sure the majority of the House understood it. [Hon. Members: "No".] I am quite sure that the lawyers concerned understood it,

Mr. Paget

No.

The Prime Minister

I observe today that a newspaper, which cannot be said to appeal solely to lawyers or specialists, the Daily Mirror, says: Everybody knew that Mr. Foot had previously been expelled from Nigeria and that Mr. Gratiaen, Q.C., had been refused admission, so it should have been obvious that Enahoro could not have them. That was the popular view and the popular understanding. So there was no question of misleading the court or the House.

Mr. G. Brown

Quote The Times.

The Prime Minister

As regards my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, of whose words great play was made, he was winding up the debate and addressing himself, curiously enough, to a point made by the right hon. Member for Orkney, Shetland (Mr. Grimond). I do not say that because the point was raised by the Leader of the Liberal Party, but it was rather curious that the Liberal Party took the view that it was really not of very much importance whether a Nigerian barrister or an English barrister was to appear. My hon. and learned Friend, in winding up the debate, addressed himself to this point.

Mr. J. Grimond (Orkney and Shetland)

I am much obliged to the Prime Minister for giving way, because this very bad point has been made three times in the debate. Whatever view I took, the Government's view was that it was of supreme importance whether or not barristers were to be allowed into Nigeria to defend the Chief. The point was not in fact answered by the Attorney-General. It was dealt with by the Home Secretary, who said that it was a matter of great importance. What astonishes me is that, in this matter of such importance, at no time in three debates did he think it worth while mentioning to the House of Commons that the counsel concerned would not be allowed in.

The Prime Minister

I was simply on the point as to whether it was important or not, and what my hon. and learned Friend said in winding up the debate was a general statement in general terms. He was not attempting to restate, still less to redefine, what had been stated in very clear and precise terms by the Home Secretary. I think that it is a very weak point to take these phrases out of a winding-up speech when the point had been made twice before in precise form. Had it not been intended that this statement made to the courts and to the House of Commons—

Mr. Paget

Did he know?

The Prime Minister

—should be made in these very precise and carefully chosen words, my hon. and learned Friend would not have used phrases like that; he would have used quite different phrases. The fact that so guarded and carefully worded a statement had been made made it abundantly clear that the Government of Nigeria reserved the right, as every Government has the right to do—[HON. MEMBERS: "Did he know?"] —while granting the privilege of appearing in their courts to English banisters, to exclude those whom it may regard as dangerous or persona non grata from their country.

What is very strange in this affair—

Mr. H. Wilson

Did he know?

The Prime Minister

The question has been answered in the debate. The right hon. Gentleman was not in the House. If he had been here, he would have heard what was said.

What is so curious is that the Motion has been worded, whether by chivalry or by intent, not to include my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. If the censure is applied to the Home Secretary, why not to the Attorney-General, if that is what the Opposition think? The

Home Secretary has told the House that the Government were aware of the reservation which the Nigerian Government took. The Government as a whole were aware of it, and that has been stated twice.

I return once more to say that I hope that we shall show by our vote tonight not merely our confidence in the Home Secretary but our confidence in the Nigerian Government, and do something to restore the relationships between us which have been destroyed by the Opposition, who pretend to be the lovers of the Commonwealth. They will destroy the Commonwealth if we let them.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 225, Noes 313.

Division No. 125.]	AYES	[10.0 p.m.
Ainsley, William	Edwards, Robert (Bilston)	Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Albu, Austen	Edwards, Walter (Stepney)	Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Fernyhough, E.	Kelley, Richard
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Finch, Harold	Kenyon, Clifford
Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)	Fitch, Alan	Key, Rt. Hon, C. W.
Bacon, Miss Alice	Fletcher, Eric	Lawson, George
Baird, John	Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)	Ledger, Ron
Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)	Forman, J. C.	Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Beaney, Alan	Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)	Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Bence, Cyril	Galpern, Sir Myer	Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)	George, LadyMeganLloyd (Crmrthn)	Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Benson, Sir George	Ginsburg, David	Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Blackburn, F.	Gourley, Harry	Lubbock, Eric
Blyton, William	Greenwood, Anthony	Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Boardman, H.	Grey, Charles	McBride, N.
Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S.W.)	Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)	McCann, John
Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)	Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)	MacColl, James
Bowles, Frank	Griffiths, W. (Exchange)	MacDermot, Niall
Boyden, James	Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.	McInnes, James
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.	Gunter, Ray	McKay, John (Wallsend)
Bradley, Tom	Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)	Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Bray, Dr. Jeremy	Hamilton, William (West Fife)	McLeavy, Frank
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Hannan, William	MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)	Harper, Joseph	Mahon, Simon
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)	Hart, Mrs. Judith	Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)	Healey, Denis	Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Callaghan, James	Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (RwlyRegis)	Mapp, Charles
Carmichael, Neil	Herbison, Miss Margaret	Marsh, Richard
Castle, Mrs. Barbara	Hewitson, Capt. M.	Mason, Roy
Chapman, Donald	Hill, J (Midlothian)	Mayhew, Christopher
Cliffe, Michael	Hilton, A. V.	Mellish, R. J.
Collick, Percy	Holman, Percy	Mendelson, J. J.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Houghton, Douglas	Millan, Bruce
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)	Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)	Milne, Edward
Cronin, John	Howell, Denis (Small Heath)	Mitchison, G. R.
Crosland, Anthony	Hoy, James H.	Monslow, Walter
Crossman, R. H. S.	Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)	Morris, John
Cullen, Mrs. Alice	Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)	Moyle, Arthur
Dalyell, Tam	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Neal, Harold
Darling, George	Hunter, A. E.	Oliver, G. H.
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)	Hynd, H. (Accrington)	O'Malley, B. K.
Davies, Harold (Leek)	Hynd, John (Attercliffe)	Oram, A. E.
Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)	Oswald, Thomas
Deer, George	Irving, Sydney (Dartford)	Padley, W. E.
Delargy, Hugh	Janner, Sir Barnett	Paget, R. T.
Dempsey, James	Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas	Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Diamond, John	Jeger, George	Pargiter, G. A.
Dodds, Norman	Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)	Parkin, B. T.
Donnelly, Desmond	Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)	Paton, John
Driberg, Tom	Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)	Pavitt, Laurence
Duffy, A. E. P.	Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield)	Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Ede, Rt. Hon. C.	Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Pearl, Frederick
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)	Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)	Pentland, Norman
Popplewell, Ernest	Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)	Wade, Donald
Prentice, R. E.	Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)	Wainwright, Edwin
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)	Small, William	Warbey, William
Probert, Arthur	Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)	Watkins, Tudor
Proctor, W. T.	Snow, Julian	White, Mrs. Eirene
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry	Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank	Whit ock, William
Randall, Harry	Spriggs, Leslie	Wigg, George
Rankin, John	Stewart, Michael (Fulham)	Wilkins, W. A.
Redhead, E. C.	Stonehouse, John	Willey, Frederick
Reid, William	Stones, William	Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Reynolds, G. W.	Strachey, Rt. Hon. John	Williams, LI. (Abertillery)
Rhodes, H.	Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)	Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)	Stross, Dr. Barnettt(Stoke-on-Trent, C.)	Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)	Swain, Thomas	Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)	Swingler, Stephen	Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)	Taverns, D.	Winterbottom, R. E.
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)	Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)	Woof, Robert
Ross, William	Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)	Wyatt, Woodrow
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)	Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)	Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.	Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)	Zilliacus, K.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)	Thornton, Ernest
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)	Thorpe, Jeremy	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Skeffington, Arthur	Tomney, Frank	Mr. Short and Mr. Rogers.
NOES
Agnew, Sir Peter	Courtney, Cdr. Anthony	Hay, John
Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)	Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)	Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Allason, James	Crawley, Aldan	Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward
Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian	Critchley, Julian	Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Arbuthnot, John	Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver	Hendry, Forbes
Ashton, Sir Hubert	Crowder, F. P.	Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Atkins, Humphrey	Cunningham, Knox	Hiley, Joseph
Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)	Curran, Charles	Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Balniel, Lord	Currie, G. B. H.	Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Barber, Anthony	Dance, James	Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Barlow, Sir John	d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry	Hirst, Geoffrey
Barter, John	de Ferranti, Basil	Hobson, Sir John
Bataford, Brian	Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.	Holland, Philip
Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)	Drayson, G. B.	Hollingworth, John
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton	du Cann, Edward	Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John
Bell, Ronald	Duncan, Sir James	Hopkins, Alan
Bennett, F. M, (Torquay)	Eden, John	Hornby, R. P.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)	Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)	Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Berkeley, Humphry	Elliott, R.W.(Newc'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)	Howard, John(Southampton, Test)
Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald	Emery, Peter	Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Bidgood, John C.	Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn	Hughes-Young, Michael
Biffen, John	Errington, Sir Eric	Hulbert, Sir Norman
Biggs-Davison, John	Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.	Hurd, Sir Anthony
Bingham, R. M.	Farey-Jones, F. W.	Hutchison, Michael Clark
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel	Farr, John	Iremonger, T. L.
Bishop, F. P.	Fletcher-Cooke, Charles	Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Black, Sir Cyril	Fraser, Rt.Hn.Hugh(Stafford&Stone)	James, David
Bossom, Hon. Clive	Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)	Jennings, J. C.
Bourne-Arton, A.	Freeth, Denzil	Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Box, Donald	Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.	Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John	Gammans, Lady	Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward	Gardner, Edward	Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Braine, Bernard	George, Sir John (Pollok)	Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Brewis, John	Gibson-Watt, David	Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter	Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)	Kaberry, Sir Donald
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry	Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)	Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Brooman-White, R.	Glover, Sir Douglas	Kerby, Capt. Henry
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)	Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)	Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Browne, Percy (Torrington)	Godber, J. B.	Kershaw, Anthony
Buck, Antony	Goodhart, Philip	Kimball, Marcus
Bullard, Denys	Goodhew, Victor	Lagden, Godfrey
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric	Gough, Frederick	Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Burden, F. A.	Gower, Raymond	Langford-Holt, Sir John
Butcher, Sir Herbert	Grant-Ferris, R.	Leather, Sir Edwin
Butler, Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)		Leavey, J. A.
Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)	Green, Alan	Leburn, Gilmour
Carr, Compton (Barons Court)	Gresham Cooke, R.	Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)	Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.	Lilley, F. J. P.
Cary, Sir Robert	Gurden, Harold	Linstead, Sir Hugh
Chataway, Christopher	Hall, John (Wycombe)	Litchfield, Capt. John
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)	Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)	Lloyd, Rt Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)	Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)	Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)	Harris, Reader (Heston)	Longbottom, Charles
Cleaver, Leonard	Harrison, Brian (Maldon)	Longden, Gilbert
Cooke, Robert	Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)	Loveys, Walter H.
Cooper, A. E.	Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)	Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill	Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Corfield, F. V.	Harvie Anderson, Miss	McAdden, Sir Stephen
Coulson, Michael	Hastings, Stephen	MacArthur, Ian

McLaren, Martin	Pike, Miss Mervyn	Talbot, John E.
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia	Pilkington, Sir Richard	Tapsell, Peter
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John	Pitman, Sir James	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Maclean, SirFitzroy(Bute&N.Ayrs)	Pitt, Dame Edith	Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
McLean, Neil (Inverness)	Pott, Percivall	Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)	Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch	Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.)
McMaster, Stanley R.	Price, David (Eastleigh)	Teeling, Sir William
Macmillan, Rt.Hn. Harold (Bromley)	Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)	Temple, John M.
Macmillan, Maurics (Halifax)	Prior-Palmer, Brig Sir Otho	Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Macpherson, Rt.Hn.Niall(Dumfries)	Profumo, Rt. Hon. John	Thomas, Peter (Conway)
Maddan, Martin	Proudfoot, Wilfred	Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)
Maginnis, John E.	Pym, Francis	Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Maitland, Sir John	Quennell, Miss J. M.	Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter
Markham, Major Sir Frank	Ramsden, James	Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest	Rawlinson, Sir Peter	Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Marshall, Douglas	Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin	Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Marten, Neil	Rees, Hugh	Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)	Rees-Davies, W. R.	Turner, Colin
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)	Renton, Rt. Hon. David	Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald	Ridley, Hon. Nicholas	Tweedsmulr, Lady
Mawby, Ray	Ridsdale, Julian	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.	Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)	Vane, W. M. F.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.	Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)	Vaughan-Morgan, Rt- Hon. Sir John
Mills, Stratton	Robson Brown, Sir William	Vickers, Miss Joan
Miscampbell, Norman	Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)	Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis
Montgomery, Fergus	Roots, William	Walder, David
Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr)	Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard	Walker, Peter
Morrison, John	Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)	Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles	Russell, Ronald	Wall, Patrick
Neave, Airey	St. Clair, M.	Ward, Dame Irene
Nicholls, Sir Harmer	Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan	Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey	Scott-Hopkins, James	Webster, David
Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael	Seymour, Leslie	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard	Sharples, Richard	Whitelaw, William
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie	Shaw, M.	Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.	Skeet, T H. H.	Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Osborn, John (Hallam)	Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiewick)	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)	Smithers, Peter	Wise, A. R.
Page, Graham (Crosby)	Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John	Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Page, John (Harrow, West)	Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher	Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)	Spearman, Sir Alexander	Woodhouse, C. M.
Partridge, E.	Stanley, Hon. Richard	Woodnutt, Mark
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)	Stodart, J. A.	Woollam, John
Peel, John	Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Percival, Ian	Storey, Sir Samuel	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Peyton, John	Studholme, Sir Henry	Mr. Chichester-Clark and
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth	Summers, Sir Spencer	Mr. Finlay.