Political Commentary
Brooke's Last Stand
By DAVID WATT
THE Prime Minister's epitaph on the Enahoro case (he insists, typically, on the pseudo- Churchillian distortion Tenahooro) deserves to be enshrined in these pages. 'I think,' he told the House of Commons the other uproarious night, 'that the Nigerian Government are sensible of the fact that the British Government felt so strongly about it that we were willing even to risk our own fortunes to do our duty by the Commonwealth.'
A harrowing picture flashes across the mind as one reads these golden words. The last desperate gamble has been lost. The Cabinet has resigned en masse. Mr. Macmillan appears on TV, a manly quaver in his voice: 'We have been de- feated and naturally I accept the decision of the House of Commons—it is their ancient privilege to do as they have done—but I am bound to say that if I were faced with the choice I would do the same again . . . honour . . our Nigerian friends . . . high principles . . tradition. . . Alas for reality. The fact is that throughout five long debates there has never been the slightest risk to the Government. From its origins the House of Commons has been at its most im- pressive over questions of individual liberty, and the issue of Chief Enahoro has showed that the old atavistic stirrings are still there—four stormy debates were needed before the Government got its way and a fifth was necessary before the mat- ter was finished. The standard of argument on both sides was extraordinarily high, debates were well attended, and doubts were freely expressed from the Government back benches—and what emerges at the end of it all? The conclusion that today, even on an issue of this sort, Party reigns almost completely supreme. This is infinitely sad, but not particularly sur- Prising within twelve months .of a general elec- tion, It could also be called a public disgrace— if, of course, one could show that the Govern- ment was entirely wrong. As usual it is far more complicated than that, and before the whole sub- ject passes into history it is worth while making °ne more attempt to disentangle the issues. At the end of last year Chief Enahoro was in Ireland„ having escaped from Nigeria where he Was wanted on charges of conspiring to over- throw the Government. A friend approached the British Home Office on his behalf and asked whether he would be safe if he came to England. There was a misunderstanding. The Chief arrived and was arrested at the request of the lgerian Government, who demanded his return. The magistrates and subsequently the Divisional c ,.,°1-11.1 were obliged to apply the Fugitive r'-'ffenders Act of 1881 which governs our re- lations with Commonwealth countries on these matters. Unfortunately, although most of our ex- tradition agreements agreements with foreign countries do no an. force us to return political offenders even to does; governments, the Fugitive Offenders Act u es; for it was passed when Commonwealth countries were under direct British control. What the courts and subsequently the Home Secretary have to decide under the Act is whether it would b. unjust or repressive or too severe a punish- ment to return the fugitive.' In other words, where a Commonwealth country is concerned the courts and the Home Secretary are forced by statute to make a highly political judgment— is the political situation in that country likely to ensure a civilised trial for the offender?
The Government was thus faced towards the end of February with the appalling choice of either offending against deep-seated British principles about political asylum or publicly accusing the Nigerian Government and courts of corruption and bias. It is not surprising that in the circumstances the Cabinet plumped for a compromise. The Chief would be returned but parliamentary opinion would be placated by the Prime Minister promising to consult the Com- monwealth about amending the Fugitive Offenders Act while the Home Secretary made certain of what was, strictly speaking, irrelevant if Nigerian justice was above suspicion: viz., that (a) the Chief would not face the death penalty and (b) he could have a British counsel at his trial in Nigeria.
This compromise turned out disastrously. The Prime Minister's promise merely made way for a powerful appeal from the Opposition that the Chief should not be the last man to suffer under what was now admitted to be a bad law. The Home Secretary fOr his part failed to do his homework and was completely thrown by a sud- den Opposition claim that the charge against the Chief could in fact carry the death penalty; moreover, inquiries in Lagos showed that although counsel for the Nigerian Government had had a clear impression, which he had passed on to the courts in January, that a year-old ban on Mr. Dingle Foot, QC, would be lifted to allow him to defend the Chief, this impression was false, and both Mr. Foot and another QC under ban would be excluded from Nigeria. This last information the Nigerian Government asked to be kept secret.
It took two divisions of the House of Commons to dispose of the first two points, during which an impression of ineradicable muddle and bloody-mindedness was successively created by the Government front bench. The issue about counsel remained in storage. The Labour leaders had finally considered raising it before Enahoro was finally deported but were dissuaded by Mr. Dingle Foot who, though he suspected he would still be banned, hoped he might finally persuade the Nigerians to let him in if no fuss were made meanwhile. But Mr. Brooke, though he kept his promise to the Nigerians as long as he could, was unable to evade a direct question on the sub- ject and was forced to admit he had known all along. The Opposition, which had been enraged by his conduct of the whole case, attacked him for misleading the House and the whole affair ended in a frivolous uproar foxily contrived by the Prime Minister in which both sides yelled happily at each other like two packs of slum children.
From this messy history a number of con- clusions might be drawn. It has proved again how dangerous are Commonwealth arrange- ments which are a hangover from the colonial era. It has exposed once again the exceedingly dubious constitutional position of the Attorney- General as legal adviser to the House of Com- mons as well as to the Government. Finally it proves, if anyone were unconvinced already, that Mr. Brooke is in the wrong job. It is not necessary, in order to reach this conclusion, to believe that the Home Secretary is an ogre—and a dishonest one at that. In fact he is the reverse— an almost painfully straightforward man who worries his way ponderously through to his con- clusions and then clings to them like grim death. Unfortunately, these are the worst possible qualifications for his office. A quicker-witted man would have seen the dangerous Enahoro case at once and would have packed him back to Ireland before the Nigerians got wise to him. A more flexible man would have told the Nigerians frankly that the Fugitive Offenders Act is anomalous and they must not take it amiss if we treated them over this case as we would the US or France. A more imaginative man would have refused to accept the Nigerian demand for sec- recy.
The irony is that by launching a personal attack on him Labour has ensured that the Prime Minister must leave Mr. Brooke where he is for many tedious weeks. Still, the episode has not been entirely without immediate results. One tele- vision tycoon, observing that the debate on the hated Television Bill had been postponed until after Whitsun to make way for the censure de- bate on Mr. Brooke, was heard (by me) to ex- claim 'God bless Enahoro!'
Previous page
