§ 74 and 79. Mr. Elwyn Jonesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) why the Inter-Territorial Movement of Persons (Control) Ordinance, 1954,in Northern Rhodesia, provides that the burden of proof in proceedings arising out of the Ordinance rests upon the accused; why no appeal except on points of personal identity are allowed against the Governor's warrants; and if he will give an assurance that Asians will still be allowed to enter from Nyasaland despite its provisions;
(2) why the Inter-Territorial Movement of Persons Control Act has been given the Governor's assent in Northern Rhodesia.
275W
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydThe burden of proof rests on the prosecution except that a person charged with entering or remaining in the territory in contravention of the Ordinance has to prove either that he has a valid permit or other permission, or that he has a reasonable excuse for failure to comply with the conditions of entry.
There is no appeal from the Governor's Orders because, under Section 5, the recommendation of the High Court is required, and, under Sections 6 and 7, the making of the Order is at the Governor's discretion; while Governor's warrants can only be issued after a conviction by a court under Section 9. No absolute assurance can be given as suggested, since the provisions of the Ordinance are irrespective of race, and each case is to be considered on its merits. The Governor saw no reason to withhold his assent to this Ordinance.