HL Deb 04 March 1969 vol 300 cc5-7

2.42 p.m.

LORD BROCKWAY

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 disavow the prosecution of the Rev. Ndabaninzi Sithole in Rhodesia by an illegal Government at an illegal trial and the illegal sentence passed on him of six years' hard labour.]

THE

MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government had of course no part at all in the decision to place Mr. Sithole on trial. We have no information about the facts of the case beyond what was produced in evidence. I think that it would be a mistake for me to comment on the conduct of the trial, or on the sentence passed on Mr. Sithole.

LORD BROCKWAY

My Lords, may I ask my noble friend another question? If this prosecution has been brought by an illegal Government, are not all the subsequent proceedings illegal? Further, while making no comment upon the charges against Mr. Sithole—and those of us who know him cannot believe that they are true—is it not the duty of Her Majesty's Government, before reaching any settlement with Southern Rhodesia, to insist that the leaders of the African people shall be released?

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, I think we must face the fact, as my right honourable friend the Minister without Portfolio said in another place on October 22 last, that: Britain has responsibility for Rhodesia without power inside Rhodesia."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 22/10/68, col. 1097.] Our policy is directed towards the restitution of constitutional rule.

With regard to the first supplementary question put by my noble friend, the legislation under which Mr. Sithole has been sentenced was passed and Judge Lewis, the judge in charge of the trial, was appointed before the illegal declaration of independence. Therefore, whatever may have been the Government in Rhodesia arid its responsibilities for this charge, the trial was conducted under legislation that was passed before U.D.I.

LORD BYERS

My Lords, is the Ministed saying that this was a legal trial? How is it possible to have a legal trial under the auspices of an illegal Government?

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, I sought to reply to my noble friend as to the source of the legislation under which Mr. Sithole was charged, and also in regard to the judge concerned. We recognise that there is an illegal régime in Rhodesia and naturally we are seeking to return Rhodesia to constitutional rule. But the question before us is really more of a legal character than of a political character, although I am bound to accept that they are both intertwined.

LORD BYERS

My Lords, is not the Minister aware that the fact that the Government are not condemning this trial will have an unfortunate effect all over the world?

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, before Her Majesty's Government could be called upon to condemn—and I certainly do not condone—we must have more knowledge of the background of this trial than is available at the moment. The only knowledge we have is the evidence that has been published.

LORD BROCKWAY

My Lords, is it not the fact this this illegal Government has illegally detained and imprisoned this man for many years? How cart a trial be regarded as a legal matter when it is brought by an illegal Government?

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, I speak subject to correction by my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, but we have not disputed the position and the standing of the courts in Rhodesia. This trial has been conducted under the rules of the courts of Rhodesia and we have no information other than what has been published as to the manner in which the trial was conducted.

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

My Lords, is there any reason to suppose that the result of this trial would not have been precisely the same if there had been a legal régime in Rhodesia?

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, as I am sure the noble and learned Viscount will agree, one would be wrong to make assumptions as to what another court might decide, because in the end only the court that hears the evidence can fairly judge the case.