TRANSFER OF PRISONERS IN AFRICA (Hansard, 19 May 1954)

§ LORD WINSTER
My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

§ THE EARL OF MUNSTER
My Lords, an Agreement between the Government of Northern Rhodesia and the Government of the Union of South Africa providing for the transfer of prisoners, including juveniles, has been in existence since 1921. In 1933, however, when a 735 Juvenile Offenders Ordinance was enacted by the Government of Northern Rhodesia, the statutory authority to transfer adult prisoners under the Agreement was inadvertently repealed. This was only discovered a few months ago when it was desired to transfer to the Union of South Africa a prisoner who was a citizen of that country. The effect of the new Ordinance is to restore to the Government of Northern Rhodesia the authority which existed before 1933.
The Ordinance to which the noble Lord refers conveys a general and purely permissive power, and the Secretary of State has been informed by the Governor of Northern Rhodesia that it is the intention of his Government normally to transfer to South Africa only long-term prisoners who are citizens of the Union. Powers in relation to the removal of prisoners are due, under Item 2 of the Federal Constitution, to become the exclusive responsibility of the Federal Government and it will be for them to consider whether the present policy calls for review.

§ LORD WINSTER
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply, which in many respects is very satisfactory, but may I ask whether he is aware that there is considerable disquiet about the treatment of African prisoners in the prisons in the Union of South Africa? May I therefore express the hope that, in future, the Governor of Northern Rhodesia will only rarely exercise his power of transferring Africans from Northern Rhodesian to South African prisons. The Africans of Northern Rhodesia are still, I understand, protected subjects, and one would certainly wish to protect them from the indignities and inhumanities which, I fear, African prisoners all too often suffer in the prisons of the Union of South Africa.

§ THE EARL OF MUNSTER
My Lords, as I said in my reply, the Governor of Northern Rhodesia has informed us that it is the intention of his Government normally to transfer to the Union of South Africa only long-term prisoners who are citizens of the Union.

§ LORD OGMORE
My Lords, what is the object of the transfer at all? If Africans have been resident in Northern Rhodesia and have committed an offence there, surely it is the duty of the 736 Northern Rhodesian Government to see to their imprisonment. Why transfer them to the Union?

§ THE EARL OF MUNSTER
An agreement was originally reached in 1921, and I understand that in certain circumstances, such as when medical treatment is required, it may well be for the benefit of the prisoner himself that he should be transferred from a tropical climate to a temperate climate, in order to complete or serve a long sentence. In many cases it may be a good proposition from the point of view of the prisoner.

§ VISCOUNT STANSGATE
My Lords, does the noble Earl remember that during the debates on the Central African Federation we were constantly assured that the protected status of residents in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland would not be affected by federation. It now appears that under federation their status is being reduced so that they can now be transferred to South African prisons.

§ THE EARL OF MUNSTER
If the noble Viscount will be good enough to read the last part of my reply, he will see that this matter is now being considered by the Federal Government.

§ VISCOUNT STANSGATE
I listened with the greatest patience to the noble Earl's reply, but the fact remains that, whereas heretofore the practice was that people from Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland could not be transferred to the Union, an Order has now been made whereby they can be transferred. That appears to me to be—I will not say a breach, but in conflict with the promises made in this House.