TNAG-0110-FCO40-146-Detainees-and-prisoners-following-19671968-disturbances-1968 — Page 35

"whether the statement ref: Review constituted under ti.

- 7

to the Committee of mergency Regulations

or some other committee which the Colonial Secretary has constituted. If it refers to the former then the statement is a misrepresentation of the provisions of Regulation 31 of the Emergenc (Principal) Regula- tions and of the Emergency (Committee of Review) Rules made thereunder, Government's latement refers to an "independent Committee of Review. Under the Emergency Regulations the Chairman and Members of Sub-Committee are appointed by the Govenor. The appointments are not gazetted and the identity of the Committee has never been made public. The Committee is not an appellate body and cannot act as such, its functions are merely to make "recommendations" to the Colonial Secretary if any detainee objects against a Detention Order.

The Colonial Secretary is perfectly at liberty to reject its "recommendations".

"The last point made in Government's statement is that Detention Orders are for one year, suggesting thereby that there is some terminal point beyond which the powers of the Colonial Secretary to order the detention of a person must come to an end. This is simply not the case.

Although Regulation 31 authorises detention for one year there is nothing to prevent the renewed detention of a person simultaneously upon his release thereby in effect making the detention perpetually renewable from year to year.

"It seems to the Bar Committee that whilst there is every justification for Government to assume Emergency powers in times of emergency, attempts by Government to justify the exercise of those powers in terms of regularity when the Emergency has passed must give cause for great concern, If it is Government's inten- tion that persons be detained on political grounds on charges being laid and "their cases being most care- fully examined by law officers" then legal provisions can and should be made to this effect. If Government's attitude is that such provisions are no longer neces- sary because the Emergency has passed then the Emergency Regulations ought to be repealed forthwith. It would of course be open to Government to reintroduce the Emergency Regulations if a further Emergency should arise and the circumstances warranted such measures.

-

"The editorial in the S.C.M. Post on Monday, July 31, 1967, stated: "The Regulations will have to be res- cinded indeed public opinion will see to it as soon as circumstances warrant their withdrawal," The same editorial further stated: "The real motives behind the Emergency Laws should be in no danger of being misinterpreted abroad if reports sent overseas are not distorted or grossly exaggerated." Govern- ment's statement is intended as refutation of points raised in a letter published overseas: it reflects an attitude to the Emergency Regulations which the Bar Committee finds unacceptable."

Henry Litton

(A letter dated November 26 in almost identical terms was published in the London Times on 2 Decmeber, 1968)