Skip to main content

Kenya Protectorate (Harry Thuku)

Volume 155: debated on Monday 26 June 1922

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the man Harry Thuku has been deported; whether before deportation he was given any trial; and, if not, what opportunities were provided for giving the man the elemental human right of meeting the allegations made against him?

The removal of Harry Thuku to Kismayu, a port in the Kenya Protectorate, has not actually been reported by the Governor, but in view of the disturbance which occurred when he was temporarily detained at Nairobi pending deportation, I have no doubt that the Order has been carried into effect. The Removal of Natives Ordinance does not provide for trial or hearing. The power to deport a native to another part of the country has existed: since 1909, and I am not aware that any question has arisen of its being unjustly exercised. It is a modification of the power which has existed under Orders in Council since 1897 to order, without any further formalities than those prescribed under the Removal of Natives Ordinance, the deportation of any person, European or non-European, who is conducting himself so as to be dangerous to peace and good order. In a country where there is a large and primitive native population, some provision of the kind is required, and the efficacy of the Ordinance in restraining seditious or violent tendencies would be seriously weakened if the procedure of an ordinary trial were required. The fact that a full report has to be sent to the Secretary of State ensures that action taken under the Ordinance is carefully watched.