§ 3.35 p.m.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, with the permission of the House and the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, may I now reply to the Question of which my noble friend Lord Brockway has given me Private Notice; namely:
To ask Her Majesty's Government if they will make a statement about the Africans under sentence of death in Rhodesia.
On March 2 petitions to Her Majesty the Queen for the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of mercy were lodged on behalf of the three men. These petitions drew attention to the very long periods—from two years and five months to three years and two months—for which the men had been lying under sentence of death, as well as to the threat that had been made that they would be hanged despite their intention of appealing further to the Privy Council. An application on behalf of two of the men I was in fact lodged with the Privy Council on the same day as the petitions to the Queen. Having considered the petitions, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State advised Her Majesty to accede to them, and it was announced late on March 2 that the Queen had done so, thus commuting the penalty for the offences for which they had been convicted from death to life imprisonment. Subsequently, applications were made to the Appellate Division in Salisbury for perpetual interdicts restraining the carrying out of the death sentences. Those applications were refused yesterday.
The final appellate court for Rhodesia is the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and it is for them ultimately to lay down what the law is. The views expressed by the Appellate Division in Salisbury cannot be regarded as conclusive. The position is that, as my right honourable friend explained in another place yesterday, the delegation of the exercise of the prerogative of mercy to the Governor of Rhodesia in the 1961 Constitution did not divest Her Majesty 1242 of Her Prerogative which she may exercise on the Secretary of State's advice.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware, first, that I thank him for his statement, and, secondly, that I do not want to say a word which will further endanger the lives of these three men or the 107 other applicants who are now under sentence of death? May I therefore content myself by asking whether Her Majesty's Government will keep the House informed about developments in this serious case?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORYes, my Lords. My latest information is more or less that the so-called officer administering the Government has now received a petition for clemency from these men, and the so-called Cabinet of the régime has been this morning considering the position.
§ LORD BROOKE OF CUMNORMy Lords, I, too, would not wish to say anything that could worsen an extremely grave situation, both for the men concerned and for Rhodesia. Am I correct in thinking that the three men petitioned Her Majesty, that the Commonwealth Secretary was then constitutionally bound to offer advice to Her Majesty on the petitions which she had received, and that Her Majesty was then constitutionally bound to act on that advice?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORYes, my Lords; both the propositions put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, are correct. The constitutional position in relation to prerogative, including the prerogative of mercy, where there is a Governor, your Lordships may find set out at some length in a Statement made by the then Home Secretary on August 11, 1947, in another place on the advice given by the then Lord Chancellor and the Law Officers, with which advice I concur.
§ LORD RATHCAVANMy Lords, can the noble and learned Lord say whether, before this advice was given to the Queen, the Governor of Rhodesia was consulted in any way?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is at all times in full consultation with the Governor.