RHODESIA

HC Deb 28 July 1977 vol 936 cc1053-73

8.57 p.m.

Mr. Frank Hooley (Sheffield, Heeley)

The matter that I wish to bring before the House tonight is an ugly and sombre business, but I think that it should be debated before the House departs for the long recess.

This House still has constitutional responsibility for Rhodesia. The Smith regime there is illegal. It is recognised by no one, not even by its friends in South Africa. It has been made clear in this House and in the courts of this country that the regime has no lawful authority to do anything at all. This position has been endorsed by the international community, by way of numerous resolutions of the United Nations. It is striking that of the 149 members of the United Nations, not one has accorded any kind of formal recognition to the Smith regime.

From the time of UDI until 1968 the regime was ruthless in seizing and imprisoning, without trial, those whom it regarded as its political opponents and in exercising its power against anyone who opposed its views. But until 1968 it did not proceed to the ultimate act of executing anyone under the law of the country. It did not carry out any death sentence until 1968.

In March 1968, in defiance of international opinion and explicit warnings by Her Majesty's Government that any execution would be tantamount to murder, and expressly ignoring the Royal Prerogative of Mercy, the regime hanged five Africans. It was a matter that was regarded with outrage by the international community, and it was a factor in the imposition of sanctions by the United Nations against the regime. Clearly it was an act of calculated brutality, designed to terrorise opponents of the regime into submission.

At that time the regime did not even have the excuse that the country was being threatened by any kind of guerrilla warfare. Such warfare had not broken out in 1968; therefore, there was not even that excuse—if it can be called an excuse —for this particular piece of barbarity, which ignored international opinion and explicitly rejected the Royal Prerogative, despite the fact that the regime claimed loyalty to the Crown.

From 1968 to April 1975—I shall explain the significance of that date later —there were, unfortunately, regular executions. It has been said that about 35 Zimbabweans were executed during that period. But on 1st December 1975 I was told by the then Minister of State, in answer to a parliamentary Question that I tabled, that 60 people had been executed in Rhodesia between UDI and April 1975. From the time the Smith regime decided to proceed unlawfully and without due authority to the hanging of political opponents, it continued with a series of executions until April 1975.

Over that period there developed an armed liberation struggle by those who had been deprived of their political rights and franchise, and who were not allowed to exercise normal political activities within their own country. As a result the regime enacted what purported to be legislation to provide the death penalty for a wide range of offences. A number of so-called Acts were passed—the Law and Order Maintenance Acts—which were designed to make it more and more difficult for any person to oppose the régime in any way at all. Not only did they make it more difficult; they introduced the death penalty for certain so-called offences.

Act No. 50, passed in 1967, proposed a mandatory death penalty—in other words, the court had no option but to pass the death penalty if a person were convicted —for those who were found to be guilty of possessing arms of war. Of course this was a deadly threat to the African population.

Any white person could obtain a licence or permission to carry a gun, a pistol or a weapon without any difficulty at all. But under this legislation a Zimbabwean who was caught, accidentally or however, merely in possession of a pistol or a rifle, or presumably, even in some circumstances, a knife or an axe, could be convicted of possessing arms of war, and the death penalty could be imposed for this offence.

The death penalty or 30 years' imprisonment could be imposed for what the régime described, in somewhat sweeping terms, as acts of terrorism or sabotage. Offences were created by the régime upon conviction of which a person could suffer the death penalty without having been involved in any kind of violence against another.

Act 12 under the Law and Order Maintenance Act 1912 provided death or life imprisonment as the penalty for attacks on property or vehicles, and it provided that the penalty could be imposed whether or not the vehicles had been occupied at the time of the offence. There was a bizarre situation, in which a person convicted of having damaged a lorry or a private vehicle could be sentenced to death under this law.

Act 44, 1973, provided death or life imprisonment as the penalty for undergoing guerrilla training or recruiting, for having encouraged others to join in guerrilla activity, for terrorism, for sabotage, or for assisting guerrillas. It should be noted that under some of those headings there was no need for the courts to find that the accused had been guilty of actually injuring, much less killing, anyone during the activity in which he had been engaged. The death penalty could be imposed even for acts of sabotage to property and for what was vaguely caller "assisting guerrillas".

Act 43, 1974, provided a mandatory death penalty. If the court convicted someone of an alleged crime it had no option but to impose the death penalty. It could be imposed for what was described as "recruiting for guerrilla training". Again, the convicted person need not have caused harm or injury to anybody; none the less, he could be sentenced to death under these so-called laws.

Another particularly grim aspect of this so-called legislation—enacted by a régime that had no authority to do so—was that the accused had to prove his innocence. There was no presumption of innocence. The accused had to establish to the satis- faction of the court that he was innocent of the charges against him.

In December 1974, as is well known, there were abortive negotiations between the régime and some of the national leaders which led to what was called the Lusaka agreement—although it is dubious whether there was any real intention of agreement at all on the part of Smith. It was generally held that the execution of political prisoners would cease in the light of the undertakings that had been given by Smith to national leaders. In other words, in order to begin a process of recreating an atmosphere conducive to a reasonable settlement of the Rhodesia problem, assurances were given by the régime that the executions of Africans in Zimbabwe would not be carried out. Indeed, one would have thought that it would be a matter of common sense that if Smith and his colleagues had been serious about the negotiations and progress towards a peaceful and constitutional settlement in Rhodesia they would, in any case, have ceased this barbaric practice, for which they had no lawful authority.

The Lusaka talks took place at the end of 1974. In January and February 1975 two Africans were hanged for "assisting terrorists". Three more Africans, Katsara Momo, Alfred Changiri and John Matsiri, were hanged for so-called terrorism and the possession of arms. That happened during the first two months of 1975, hard on the Lusaka talks and at a time when there was at least some hope that a process of negotiation that might conceivably lead to constitutional rule had been set in train.

Nevertheless, the régime continued to hang people in Zimbabwe. On 22nd April 1975, Lardner-Burke, the so-called Minister for Law and Order, stated that the Rhodesian authorities would withhold all details of further executions, as the issue had become "an emotive one". It appears that even the Smith régime was becoming sensitive to the barbarity of this practice and the rest of the world's view on what was happening. It was not willing to desist from the hanging of political opponents and others, but was too ashamed to continue to announce publicly when the executions were to take place.

Lardner-Burke said that when a death sentence was passed and an appeal was turned down it should be presumed that the prisoner would be executed. The grisly epitaph of many Africans in Zimbabwe must be "sentenced, presumed hanged". Mr. Sithole later protested violently that some prisoners had been hanged at one hour's notice and had not even been given the opportunity to see relatives or friends before the sentence was carried out.

In April 1975, four Africans were sentenced to death after being charged with recruiting freedom fighters. It is interesting to note what sort of people they were. Maurice Nyagumbo was a leader of the ANC and was involved in the Lusaka talks. One might presume that he would be expected, even by the Smith régime, to be a potential political leader in the country.

Another, Movan Mahachi, was manager of an African farming co-operative in Inyanga and had done a great deal for Africans in that area. John Mutasa was a farmer associated with the multi-racial Cold Comfort Farm. Percy M'kudu was a former African Member of Parliament and a prominent member of the Anglican Church in Rhodesia. That is the type of person that the Smith régime was sentencing to death and executing in secret.

In August 1975, Benson Neube and Robbie Nyambabun were sentenced to death for recruiting youths for terrorist training. The charge was not that they had committed any violence or had killed or injured anyone, but simply that they were recruiting colleagues for the liberation struggle.

In October 1975, 65-year-old John Hlengani was sentenced to death for taking three nephews across the border into Mozambique. The régime claimed that his object was to allow them to join the liberation army. He claimed that they wanted to find work in Mozambique. The charge was not that he had committed any act of violence or that he had attacked or injured anyone, but simply that he had escorted the three boys across the border. For that, he was sentenced to death.

It is believed that during 1975, a total of 22 people were executed by the régime, although we cannot be certain of the number of executions because the practice of publishing the date and time of hangings had ceased following the Lardner-Burke pronouncement.

In 1976, the régime developed a system of special mobile corps that went to certain areas, held trials in camera and sentenced to death those who were presumed to be involved in the guerrilla war in some way and even some Africans who were not involved at all.

In March 1976 an African named Luckson Tiniboyi was sentenced to death for killing a soldier flying in a helicopter. There was no evidence that Tiniboyi had fired a shot, but he was convicted on the legal doctrine that I understand is called "common purpose". That is because he had been caught where guerrilla forces were operating. It was there that the incident happened. He was assumed to be guilty and was duly condemned to death. In July 1976 Stephen Chapangu was sentenced to death for bearing arms of war. No evidence was produced that he had killed anyone.

It has been estimated that about 64 Africans were executed in 1976. In October 1976 a list of the names of 58 Africans known to be under sentence of death was published by organisations in this country, based on information that they had secured in Rhodesia.

In January 1977 eight supporters of Bishop Muzorewa of the United African National Council were hanged in Salisbury. This led Bishop Muzorewa to protest. He said: To our utter dismay the next thing we heard was the statement that the eight men had been executed. In the light of this tragic situation, we seriously wonder whether Mr. Smith is in control of the people whom he claims to lead. Also this amply explains why practically everything the Rhodesian Front has done since September 24th contradicts and/or undermines the alleged acceptance of the principle of majority rule. Bishop Muzorewa is now being put forward by Smith as the man with whom he purports to be prepared to do some sort of deal. The most recent example of leading men being sentenced to death is Robert Bhebe and Pinos Zehama, who were sentenced in March for recruiting for guerrilla activities. It is believed, although I cannot say this categorically, that Bhebe was executed last week. He had been released from detention, having been held for some time by the Smith régime. He had been released to attend Lusaka talks. He must, therefore, have been regarded as one of the possible up-and-coming leaders of his country against the day when constitutional rule is restored in Rhodesia.

The effect of this process of hangings and executions has led to the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth to make an appeal to the International Committee of the Red Cross. On 15th July Mr. Ramphal wrote to the President of the International Committee of the Red Cross as follows: The continuing cold-blooded execution of political opponents jeopardises beyond measure the prospects of a constructive peace and is an incalculable threat to race relations not only in Zimbabwe but beyond. Mr. Ramphal went on properly to recall the deep concern expressed by the Commonwealth Heads of Government over the increasing danger to international peace arising from the armed struggle in Rhodesia. There is no doubt that there is a war in progress in Rhodesia. Curiously the Smith régime admits as much itself. In the Rhodesian Sunday Mail in March of this year it was stated: The terrorist war has now become a war in the fullest sense and is being treated as such by the Government. It follows from that that if people are captured or held in the course of the fighting they should not under any circumstances be hanged as if they are common criminals.

We know that in a war of this kind, violence and atrocities, perhaps on both sides, are bound to occur. Many of us have warned for years, in the House and elsewhere, that the consequence of the intransigence of the Smith régime—the refusal to progress to majority rule and the refusal to grant normal political rights and activities to the nineteen-twentieths of the population of Rhodesia—would be a racial conflict, and this has now broken out.

There is a war, and the Smith régime accepts as much. In those circumstances the British Government should make it clear and, indeed, the international community should make it clear, that they will not tolerate the hanging—the judicial murder—of Africans who may be captured or may even be seized by the forces of the illegal régime in the course of that conflict. I think that it should be stated quite clearly that in the course of armed conflict, persons who may be taken prisoner should be accorded at least the basic rights that are normally observed in the course of armed conflict, and that the hangings must cease.

The question has been put: what, in fact, can the British Government do about it? We know that on a number of occasions the Foreign Secretary and Her Majesty's Government have protested against these hangings. So far those protests seem to have been of no avail. It is reasonable now that Her Majesty's Government should invoke the authority of the Security Council and demand a resolution by that Council which would declare quite clearly that if the process of judicial murder and hanging of prisoners by the Smith régime goes on in the future, from this moment on, the persons concerned will be put on trial for war crimes, that they will be treated as indulging in criminal activities, and that we shall seek the authority of the world community for saying quite clearly that when a constitutional authority has been restored in Rhodesia, this country, which has the constitutional authority, with the explicit support of the international community, will be prepared and entitled to proceed against those in Rhodesia, both high and low, who have carried out these brutal executions over the years.

We should make clear that we intend to do this, and it should be made absolutely clear to the Smith régime, so that those who, from now on, indulge in this practice of hanging prisoners and political opponents will know that they do so at their own peril.

9.23 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall (Haltemprice)

No one knows better than the occupant of the Chair that there are two sides to every story. I want to ask the question why these trials and executions, to which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) has referred, were necessary. Indeed, the hon. Member gave the House the answer. Rhodesia is at war.

The hon. Member knows as well as I do that in similar campaigns in the immediate colonial past, the British Government, be they of his party or mine, have adopted much the same emergency measures as are being adopted in Rhodesia today. I refer to the Mau Mau, the rebellion in Cyprus, Aden, and so on. It may well be that now we are confronted with the same form of revolutionary activity much nearer home indeed in this country—in Ulster. We do not take similar action. That is probably because we have learned to be, one might say, more civilised. Equally, one might say that it is a great mistake to create martyrs.

But we are not talking about Europe. This is the point that I want to emphasise. The double standards that are so often displayed in the House of Commons are due to the fact that hon. Members compare what is happening in Africa with what is happening in Europe, and that is not a comparison of like with like. The hon. Member was dealing with Africa, and not Europe. In Africa we have a different set of standards. He will know what is happening in Ethiopia today, where the 150 people who form the Government have now murdered about 50 per cent. of that Government. He will know what is happening in Uganda, and in Guinea under President Sekou Touré. These are all, equally, murders. But those concerned do not have the benefit of a trial beforehand. People are murdered without any form of trial. At least the hon. Member admits that people have trials in Rhodesia.

Some believe that one man, one vote in Rhodesia will bring democracy. I do not want to deal with political matters, but I would merely say that if we look at the recent history of Africa we shall see that one man, one vote did not bring democracy. In fact, of the 48 members of the OAU, 15 now have military Governments and 30 have one-party States. That leaves only three democracies of an approximate standard that we could call democracy in this House.

I would also remind the House that over the past 10 years there have been well over 100 revolutions, coups d'états or attempted coups d'états in the African independent States. The great panacea of one man, one vote has not brought democracy to the States of Africa.

Unlike other African countries, these men who have been executed have faced a fair trial. Why have they been brought to trial? Because of their guerrilla activities. The guerrilla activity in Rhodesia falls into two phases. From 1966 to 1970 there were well-trained guerrillas—trained in China, the Soviet Union and Cuba—who during that time made five major incursions into Rhodesia from Zambia. All were defeated. There was then a pause for a number of years and the second phase that we are now in started in December 1972.

Subversion occurred over a fairly wide area of North-East Rhodesia. The Rhodesian army mounted Operation Hurricane in order to deal with the rebellion and the incursion from Mozambique. They dealt with it extremely successfully until the time of Portuguese withdrawal and the Lusaka talks, which gave the guerrillas time to reorganise and re-equip.

In 1976 Mozambique virtually declared war on Rhodesia. Operation Thrasher was mounted, based on Umtali, in January 1976 and Operation Repulse, based on Fort Victoria, in May 1976. These were to protect Rhodesia from incursions from Mozambique which were basically Mashona or ZANU operations. They were reasonably successful. Since then, a further operation area has had to be created to cover Matabeleland when ZAPU recently started operating from Zambia.

The House should remember that Rhodesia is at war on three of her four borders and that in wars unpleasant things happen, even, as we know to our own cost, in our country in Ulster.

I believe that the Rhodesian Army is well disciplined and that it is probably the finest anti-terrorist army in the world today. It is an honourable army. It is two-thirds black. That is a point which the House might remember. It has fought terrorism for well over 10 years with great success.

I read recently that the Government were toying with the idea—more than toying; it was one of their conditions—of amalgamating the Rhodesian Army with the terrorist guerrillas. That is rather like expecting the Guards to mix with the Hitler Youth. If the Government proceed on these lines, they will not stand very much chance of achieving a settlement.

The army in Rhodesia is a constitutional army. It will uphold the elected Head of State. I understand that the heads of the army have been to see Bishop Muzorewa and have told him that if he is elected Prime Minister or President of Rhodesia they will serve him just as they are serving the President and Mr. Smith at the moment. As the army is the only stabilising force in Rhodesia today, any disruption would ensure the inevitability of a civil war between Mashona and Matabele. I recommend that the Minister reads the excellent article on this subject by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings), which appeared in the Daily Telegraph today.

I turn from the army to the guerrillas themselves. The hon. Member for Heeley read out a list of those who have been tried and executed. I could spend a similar time recounting to the House the guerrilla atrocities that have taken place over the last five or 10 years. I shall not do so. All I will do is read a paragraph from a report by a clergyman of the Anglican Church in Rhodesia. Speaking of the guerrillas he said Another African school supervisor was burnt to death with paraffin while his murderers danced to the tune of a radiogram. Of the beatings from which so many black tribes-people have died, an African priest said to the present writer: It would be kind if the terrorists killed their victims. The tape today says that two buses of school children have been blown up. The report continues: The hundreds of cases of murder, torture, maiming and rape defy any attempt at description. Pliers are used to cut off ears, noses, lips: wives are compelled to roast and eat the severed flesh. African children driving an ox-cart have been blown to bits by a landmine—the fate of the passengers of dozens of buses in the tribal areas. A black policeman and a black district assistant were stripped naked, as were some nearby women, forced to have intercourse with them, and then beaten and shot. Is it surprising that the silent African majority is very silent indeed? If race relations in Rhodesia were not good the whites would have been swamped long ago: they are outnumbered more than twenty to one. That is the story of the appalling activities in Rhodesia today. I am prepared to admit that although the Rhodesian army is well disciplined there may have been cases in which the army has perpetrated excesses, as have the British and other armies in such circumstances.

This terrorism is against their own people. It is the ZAPU guerrillas attacking the Mashona and the ZANU guerrillas attacking the Matabele. To be fair, there are few atrocities committed on the Matabele by the ZAPU. Their policy is to train, equip and hide their weapons to prepare for the real battle to defeat the Mashona dogs whom they have hated and despised over the centuries. What matters is that law and order must be maintained by the courts, the police and the army.

We must not forget the murders that have taken place amongst the guerrillas' own people. Herbert Chitepo and Jason Moyo were the victims of internecine warfare. That is what is preventing the armies of ZANU and ZAPU from joining together to attack the real enemy—the white man and Mr. Smith's Administration. If law and order break down, civil war between the Mashona and the Matabele will develop. That is why Nkomo of ZAPU is building up his army to match Mugabe's army. That is probably why Nkomo is in Cuba today to recruit more people to his side.

We all deplore violence and killing, but we all know, since we have been through it, that war is war. There is now only one hope. Time and time again opportunities have been missed. Both Mr. Smith and we are to blame. We must all share the blame. The only hope now is an internal settlement which will bring majority rule in the next 12 months. I believe that that is Mr. Smith's intention. I hope that the West will not sabotage it. If this comes to fruition—it is a big "if"—and it is then sabotaged by Anglo-American efforts, the blood of many innocent people will be on the hands of the British and American Governments.

9.35 p.m.

Mr. John Cope (Gloucestershire, South)

I do not wish to make a long speech because I know that the night will be a long one for some, at least.

I do not disagree with everything said by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley), but his deeply-held convictions led him to put one side only of the case and to be unselective in what he said. He glossed over some of the factual background referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) and some of which I had the opportunity to see in Rhodesia.

I appreciate the fact that the hon. Gentleman and others view the death penalty as unacceptable in any circumstances, in any country, even for those who commit murder and atrocities for political ends. Everybody respects that view, but that is not the view of many in this House. Indeed, it is not the view of many in this country, and it is not the principle upon which many countries on either side of the ideological divide operate.

I wish to point to the background to those hangings. I think, as do the majority of whites whom I met in Rhodesia, that the struggle there is no longer primarily about keeping white supremacy. It is about the future shape of the inevitable black Government. It is about the economic future of the country, whether the whites will stay and whether the Africans will suffer in a monumental bloodbath. That is what it is all about.

The war in Rhodesia is not mainly a war of white versus black. There are three points to be made to back up that statement. In the first place, there are many in Mr. Smith's security forces who are black Africans. Half the army, two-thirds of the police and nearly all the guard force are African. There are more black men fighting in Rhodesia in the army, police and guard force than there are fighting against the security forces inside the Rhodesian borders.

Secondly, the terrorist and guerrilla forces attack as many black people in Rhodesia as they do white people in that country. They kill, maim and mutilate black civilians in the tribal areas. Much of the backing in the form of arms and training for the terrorist guerrillas comes from white sources, from the Communist bloc. We saw some of the arms that were captured. They were almost universally Communist arms from China, Russia and Eastern Europe. White people are involved on both sides of the dispute, as are African people of Rhodesia, or Zimbabwe, whatever phrase one prefers to use.

The point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice about the targets of some of these attacks is relevant in another way. The lives of many Africans, particularly in the tribal areas, which are remote, are very much affected by the terrorism and the events that are taking place. The only people who can give major protection to those Africans in the tribal areas are the present security forces, who are mainly African. But certainly that protection is provided by the present security forces and the judicial set-up. Whether we like it or not, those are the only people who can provide strong protection of any sort for the Africans.

At the time of UDI, 12 years ago, the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), addressed himself to this point. In the debate the day after UDI was declared, on 12th November 1965, he said about the position of the judges: The Governor has already told the judges, with our approval, that it is the judges' duty to carry on, and I understand that they are going to carry on. He went on in the next column to make this wider comment: I think the House would agree that it is the duty of public servants to remain at their posts, and especially to maintain essential public services and public order."—[Official Report, 12th November 1965; Vol. 720, c. 630–31.] We appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman thought that the whole matter would be sorted out in a few weeks—that the illegal régime would not last very long—but he laid down there the basic principle that the existing judges —under the existing system of law—and the security forces should do their best to continue to maintain public order, in spite of the existence of the illegal régime, and that is what they continued to do. The legal basis, particularly after all this length of time since UDI, may be unsatisfactory, but that does not entitle us to ignore the facts or the basis upon which the system operates.

In The Times and other newspapers last Saturday there was another example of what is going on. We read of 27 African civilians, 17 of them children, being beaten and burnt to death in the tribal area at Rushinga, in North-East Rhodesia. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman thinks should happen to the people who committed those murders if they should be caught and convicted.

Mr. Hooley

The hon. Gentleman is well aware that there is increasing evidence that many of the massacres are being carried out by the security forces themselves.

Mr. Wall

Rubbish.

Mr. Hooley

That is being testified to by the kind of Church people that the hon. Gentleman was so anxious to quote. The Churches are producing increasing evidence that many of the atrocities are being committed by the security forces deliberately to set off the Africans one against the other.

Mr. Cope

Neither of us knows what happened in the incident that I mentioned. It is very recent, and we have no information about it. But, whoever committed the atrocity, the question still remains: what should happen to the people who committed it? I draw little distinction between the murderers and the "godfathers" who dispatch them and organise the murders, but we must still answer the question: what should happen to those who commit atrocities, whoever they be, if they are caught and convicted through the legal processes?

Certainly the majority of the atrocities, if not all, have been committed by terrorists sent from outside Rhodesia. I hope at least that the hon. Gentleman does not think that they should be applauded as freedom fighters, fighting for the freedom of the murdered children in Rushinga. I do not think that at all.

There is a wider aspect. Rhodesia has vast problems. Apart from the problems of finding a settlement and a bringing together of the races, it has a population explosion second to none in the world. The African population has risen from about 3½ million to 6½ million in the past 15 to 16 years. Rhodesia has an undeveloped country's birth rate and a developed country's survival rate, through modern medicine, yet it can feed and support its population. I believe that, given good organisation and agriculture in the future, it can do more than that, and feed half Africa. In working for a settlement, we the British and everyone else must as far as possible give Rhodesia the best chance to reach its potential in agriculture and other production to support the tremendous increase in the population.

Democracy means that the white Rhodesians cannot go on dominating the government of the country. That is what I believe, even though I also believe that the efficient oligopoly of the whites that has existed so far would be economically better for the country and all the Rhodesians, of every race. There will be an economic price to pay for democracy, just as many people think that we pay an economic price for democracy here, and are prepared to do so. The aim of every reasonable man should be not to incite those who want to drive the whites out and terrorise Africans in Rhodesia but to give them both, the whites and the Africans, the confidence to stay and contribute to the new Zimbabwe when it is formed after a settlement.

Exaggerating the case and putting it in a rather one-sided fashion—as I thought the hon. Member for Heeley did —makes it more difficult for the Foreign Secretary to gain and retain the confidence not only of the whites but of the many black Africans who are antiterrorist. I acknowledge the strength of the hon. Gentleman's feelings, but I think that hangings are to be deplored no more than the murders and acts of terrorism that lead to the convictions and the hangings that he deplores. Any death in a situation like this, as in Northern Ireland or anywhere else, makes the problem more difficult. There will be very few hangings, and I do not believe that it helps to distort the situation.

9.46 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Evan Luard)

I would first like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) on raising this subject today. It is an undoubted fact that the executions which he has described arouse the deepest revulsion and indignation not only in the House but in the country. I regret that there has not been adequate opportunity in the House for the strong feelings that I think are widely felt on this subject to be expressed and made known to the world. It is very important that the régime in Rhodesia should know the feelings of this country and the feelings of hon. Members on this matter. My hon. Friend has therefore done us a service in giving us the opportunity to consider the matter today

This question has aroused widespread concern in the House, in the Press and elsewhere over a considerable period. As my hon. Friend rightly said, this is a series of events that has been occurring since at least 1968.

There is no difference between the views of my hon. Friend and those of the Government towards this problem. My hon. Friend pointed out that the régime is an illegal régime, and I do not think that anyone in the House would dispute that. The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Cope) rather ignored this vital element of the situation in some of the remarks that he addressed to my hon. Friend the Member for Heeley. I think that the approach of the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South and his hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) was not directed to the specific point that my hon. Friend raised, which concerned these executions, whether they were legal or not, and what people in this country can do to bring them to an end. Tonight may have been a useful opportunity for a wider discussion on the Rhodesian situation, but the hon. Members for Gloucestershire, South and Haltemprice were not addressing themselves to the point that my hon. Friend raised.

Because the régime is illegal, it therefore has no legal authority to undertake these executions or many other actions that it undertakes. The Government have always made it clear that we share the widespread and mounting abhorrence felt by the public at the Smith régime's prac- tice of imprisoning and executing its political opponents. We have repeatedly called upon the régime to end such activities. We have done so in appeals made in this House in answers to questions from hon. Members and privately in exchanges between the Government and Mr. Smith.

As my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary told the House on 25th July, he raised the whole issue with Mr. Smith when he saw him in April and told him that these hangings were offensive to international opinion and that if Mr. Smith genuinely wanted to show that he was moving towards majority rule and towards a settlement, one of the ways of doing so would be to desist from them. Unfortunately, he has continued with them. My hon. Friend referred to the recent executions: those executions are not merely reported executions; the régime has admitted that they have taken place. The decision to continue with this practice is one of the problems that we have to face today.

I regret that I am unable to give the House details of exactly how many people are under sentence of death or have been hanged in Rhodesia because—as my hon. Friend described in his very full account of what has happened in Rhodesia in the past 10 years—the regime has now decided, presumably in answer to those who were attempting to draw attention to the regime's activities, not to publish any details of the hangings or to give any account of when executions have taken place.

Indeed, as is made clear from the Rhodesian Front reports of the execution of Robert Bhebe on 13th July, such secrecy now surrounds the execution of political detainees in Rhodesia that the relatives of condemned Africans are not aware that their execution has taken place until some time afterwards. This is another deplorable aspect which arouses deep repugnance in this House and in the country. In Mr. Bhebe's case, for example, nothing was known of his execution until his relatives called to see him on the morning of his death.

Such are the actions that we have unhappily come to expect from a regime which claims to be maintaining civilised standards. We have protested against this barbarity and will continue to protest. We commend, too, the activities of those—and there is a large number of such individuals and organisations in this country—who are campaigning to draw attention to the regime's policies.

Hon. Members are entitled to ask what the Government are doing to prevent such activities. As many hon. Members will know, the Government have tried in many ways to bring home to the regime their anger at these executions. In 1968, for example, the then Labour Government advised Her Majesty The Queen to exercise the Royal Prerogative of Mercy in favour of three Africans under sentence of death in Rhodesia. Despite this, the regime went ahead and nothing that was done could prevent the three men from being hanged.

Mr. Wall

Does the Minister not recall that the three Africans in question were condemned for murder before UDI under the due process of law?

Mr. Luard

That may be the case, but I do not think that it affects the relevance of what I am saying. In that case Her Majesty exercised the Royal Prerogative of Mercy in favour of the Africans, but they were subsequently executed. That must be a relevant factor in considering whether we should recommend to Her Majesty that she should do the same thing about other proposed executions at present. We have to consider that possibility.

If we wish, as most of us in this House probably do, to make unmistakably clear to the regime in Rhodesia our very deep-felt repugnance at these executions, one of the clearest ways of doing so would be for the Royal Prerogative of Mercy to be exercised in those cases. It is certainly for consideration whether the Government should again do what was done in 1968 and make such a recommendation.

We have warned repeatedly that if anyone against whom there is evidence of criminal acts in Rhodesia comes within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, it will be open to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to consider instituting legal proceedings against him. I repeat and underline that warning today. We have been considering and will continue to consider what further pressures can be brought to bear on the régime. I have noted the suggestions that have been made today.

My hon. Friend the Member for Heeley suggested that this was a matter which should be raised in the United Nations and that the United Nations Security Council should explicitly issue a warning to the Smith régime on this matter. This is an interesting suggestion of which I should like to take note and which I shall forward to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. As my hon. Friend knows, the United Nations is already heavily involved in the affairs of Rhodesia, and it would be open to the Security Council, perhaps in the context of some other resolution, to make clear the very point that my hon. Friend has made, to issue a stern warning against a repetition of executions of this kind. That suggestion is well worth our bearing in mind.

It may be that there is scope for further action, and we shall once more look at the alternatives open to us. We certainly rule out no option.

Perhaps I may mention one particular point which I think is of fundamental importance in trying to exercise influence on the régime in Rhodesia on this matter. I believe that there is no Government in the world, including this régime, who are totally indifferent to publicity elsewhere, to widespread reports in the Press and through the media generally of the strongly held feelings of most people in other parts of the world. I believe that it is important that the Press of this country and that individuals in this country should make clear the feelings which I believe are widely shared here about these executions. My hon. Friend has done service by introducing this debate today, because it has provided an opportunity for such feelings to be expressed. I very much hope that they will not be lost on the régime in Rhodesia.

For reasons which the House will recognise and know, we have at present no practical means of stopping the executions in Rhodesia, especially in the face of what is clearly a grim determination on the part of the régime to carry them through. We shall continue, nevertheless, to do everything in our power to bring such heinous practices to an end. The best and possibly the only ultimate way of doing this is to achieve the negotiated solution for which we all are all now striving.

Meanwhile, I very much hope that the views which have been expressed so strongly in the debate today by my hon. Friend—views which are certainly widely shared in the country as a whole—will be carefully noted by the régime in Rhodesia and that they will recognise that if they want to secure a settlement an essential precondition is that they should cease these barbarous executions, which have aroused such justifiable anger not only in this country but throughout the Western world and the world.