HL Deb 15 November 1967 vol 286 cc681-2

2.28 p.m.

LORD WADE

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

[The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will raise at the U.N. the question of the 36 political prisoners from South-West Africa now being tried in Pretoria in view of the fact that the General Assembly decision of October. 1966, renders the trial illegal.]

THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD SHACKLETON)

My Lords, this matter has been considered by the United Nations Committee of Twenty-Four which has adopted a resolution condemning as illegal the arrest of these men and demanding their immediate release. The report of the Committee of Twenty-Four which contains this resolution comes up for discussion in the General Assembly shortly. The United Nations are therefore already seized of this matter.

LORD WADE

My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for that reply. Would he agree that this is not a case where it could be contended that the United Nations are interfering in the internal affairs of another country, since the 36 political prisoners have been taken from the mandated territory of South-West Africa and put on trial in Pretoria? Furthermore, is the noble Lord aware that the Act under which they are charged is retrospective, since the alleged offences occurred prior to the Act on which the prosecution is relying. May I urge Her Majesty's Government to press this matter at the United Nations when the opportunity arises?

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, the noble Lord has raised points on which we may all have strong personal views, but the legal situation is nothing like as clear as he would seem to suggest. One may have doubts in various directions, and indeed there are doubts about the competence of the General Assembly to revert the administration of the territory to itself. The legal status of South Africa, therefore, remains obscure. Whatever one's view may be about the propriety or legality of the trial, the factual position is that South Africa continues to exercise control in the territory. I am very sorry, but I cannot usefully comment on these aspects because of the legal complications.

LORD BROCKWAY

My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he will consider another suggestion, in view of the fact that he has stated that the legal position is in doubt? Would it not be possible, in view of the decision of the International Court at The Hague, to refer this matter to The Hague for a decision, and so prevent the execution of these men before a legal decision has been reached?

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, I appreciate my noble friend's point, and obviously I will convey any suggestion he makes. One of the difficulties, as he will know, is that to obtain an advisory opinion from the Court it is necessary to have some locus standi, and, of course, the International Court at The Hague did not take a decision previously. They did not rule that what South Africa was doing was legal or was illegal; all they said was that the circumstances in which the previous matter was brought to them were such that they were not in a position to consider it. It really is a very difficult point. But I certainly will take the noble Lord's point and refer it on, although I am not very hopeful, in view of the legal tangle.