I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the cases of the officers who have been removed from the Army, or their resignations enforced, for failure in South Africa, have been the subject of courts of inquiry; if so, have all such officers been accorded the opportunity of attending and defending themselves.
Officers who have failed in the field, or otherwise, in South
Africa have been removed either on evidence given before courts of inquiry or on the recommendation of their superior officers. In such eases the general officer commanding satisfies himself that the officer's case is fully before him before he makes any recommendation to the War Office.* See page 180.
May I ask whether, when cases have been under consideration by courts of inquiry, the officer o concerned have been allowed to attend.
As I told the House the other day, when an officer is summoned before a court of inquiry the court is bound to hear him if he desires to be heard. Of course cases might come before courts of inquiry in which are mentioned the names of officers whose attendance may not always be available.
Is it possible for an officer to be condemned and removed as the result of a court of inquiry without having an opportunity of being heard?
An officer cannot be condemned by a court of inquiry, but circumstances might come before the authorities consequent upon an inquiry on which they might require to be satisfied. An officer's case is fully gone into before a decision is come to.
Has he an opportunity of defending himself?
Has it ever happened that an officer has been condemned without going before the court of inquiry?
There may be cases in which an officer's name is mentioned whose attendance it is not possible to ensure.
What hon. Members desire to be assured upon is whether an officer can suffer by the finding of a court of inquiry without he himself having been heard.
[No answer was given.]