The trial of Obi Egbuna and his two co-defendents, Peter Martin and Gideon Dolo, opened late November, at the Old Bailey Central Criminal Court, London.
The three Black Power militants had been held in Brixton Prison for four months, since July, without bail. Egbuna is an internationally-known playwright and author of two novels, WIND AGAINST POLYGAMY and ANTHILL. He is one of the most articulate spokesmen for Black Power ideas in Britain.
The arrests caused considerable apprehension in the immigrant community. The refusal by the courts of three separate applications for bail was sufficient testimony to the racialist overtones of the case, especially when such refusals were contrasted to the ease with which two fascists, recently arrested in London for possession of machine guns, along with a cache of ammunition and other weapons, were granted bail.
The trial lasted two weeks. As it unfolded, it became increasingly obvious that what was involved was a clear attempt by the police to put the ideas of Black Power on trial and to "get" Obi Egbuna. Apparently the police had applied in the past to the Director of Public Prosecutions to have Egbuna arrested under the Race Relations Act, but had been turned down, it being pointed out that too many black people had been arrested under the Act since its introduction.
The charges against the defendents were that between June 9th and July 25th, they had handed over a statement to a Nigerian printer, living in London - Simon Davies - which contained words which "threatened to murder" and which "incited others to murder". These threats, according to the prosecution, were contained in a hand-written statement, in Obi Egbuna's hand-writing, under the heading of "confidential" and "to be printed and circulated to the membership of the Black Panther Party" and to readers of BLACK POWER SPEAKS, the organ of the Universal Coloured Peoples Association. The latter journal was edited by Obi Egbuna.
The prosecutor, E.J.P. Cusson, argued at great length that the motivation for the writing of the "statement" lay in a "disturbance" at Speakers' Corner, Hyde Park, June 9th, when fighting broke out at a black Speaker's meeting between a black man and a white heckler. The mainly black audience had become incensed when the police arrested the black man - and not the white, and then proceeded to arrest a further two black men, using considerable violence in the process. The crowd became angry and spontaneously protested outside the police station in Hyde Park where the arrested men were held.
These events were related to the court by police witnesses - two plain-clothed detectives, Detective Sergeants Edge and Bennett, whose special assignment, it would seem, was to melt with the crowds at public meetings at Hyde Park for snooping purposes. Both claimed Egbuna had been responsible for the demonstration, having organised and led it.
Obi, whose defence counsel was Tom Kellock, Q.C., argued that he had not been present at the demonstration, but had come late having been informed of it while at another part of the park. Under Kellock's cross-examination the cops admitted that they were separated from Egbuna by a large number of people, that there was much shouting making it difficult to ascertain what Egbuna was doing or saying. Both read from prepared notes.
Certainly the most unsavoury character to emerge was Simon Davies, sometimes known as Agibolo, the printer, who along with his wife, comprised the only civilian witnesses for the prosecution.
Davies, a Yoruba, at first claimed he was a "law student". This was a straight lie, a crude attempt to give himself a respectable cover. Under cross-examination by Sir Dingle Foot, defence counsel for Peter Martin, he admitted that he was an "undischarged bankrupt", having had printing businesses over the past six years, and that his finances were in an attentuated state as he owed money to many people.
It was on Davies' evidence that the cops worked up the charges against the defendants and pinned their hopes on a conviction. As Davies talked, one wondered why the cops had the gall to parade this unfortunate specimen forth. His inconsistencies were monumental - his memory, when it came to questions he found difficult to answer, would totally fail him - at other times he could remember the minutest detail of situations and dialogue of several months back. He baldly contradicted evidence he gave in the magistrates court and changed his evidence in the course of cross-examination. He presented the image of a pliable police tool.
The purpose of Davies' evidence was to establish that Egbuna was the editor of BLACK POWER SPEAKS, and that he was also author of the "statement" (which became known as Exhibit 13) and that it had been brought to Davies by Peter Martin. The strangest part of his testimony was that about the occasion when Exhibit 13 was first handed to him by Martin. Davies said he did not read it then, although he admitted that he had started to type it, but got as far as doing a foolscap page and "became so shocked" with what he read, he stopped and did not continue. THREE WEEKS LATER, he claimed, he read it in full and then instantly saw "its illegality" - he then phoned "Inspector Thompson at Scotland Yard." He could not remember when he took it to the police or when they came to visit him. "I can't remember", was the stock reply to any question about his connection with the police; although in a slip he admitted that he had been previously in contact with the police "about another statement".
According to defence witnesses, Davies had been a member of the UCPA and had participated in one of its meetings as chairman. It would seem that he soured when a decision was made not to let him print BLACK POWER SPEAKS any longer because of outright incompetence on his part as a printer. Evidence was given [illegible] that Davies [illegible] as a printer was totally unreliable [illegible].
The most impressive figure to emerge in the trial was that of the chief defendant, Obi Egbuna. On the witness stand he looked relaxed and in complete control of himself, [illegible] almost two days of [illegible] examination. He explained that he had been [writing] a new novel, entitled WIMBLEDON BLUES, [illegible] process of psychological [illegible] of a black man in racist Britain [illegible] the frustration and [illegible] leading [illegible] to rejection - a total alienation from that society.
The "statement", Exhibit 13, which Davies had taken to the police, had been part of the final chapter of WIMBLEDON BLUES - Obi had loaned Davies the unfinished manuscript and at one time discussed with Davies the final chapter of the book. "What I gave Davies", Egbuna said, "was a consultation note". He said his method of writing was to work out key speeches and dialogues in advance - a practice common to many writers.
He emphasised that the writing was purely fictional; it was only on this basis that certain contradictions in Exhibit 13 could be understood. For example, the statement was marked CONFIDENTIAL, yet the police [illegible] that it was meant to be printed in [illegible] and to be included for circulation.
[illegible] a huge box of material, prominently visible for the jury to see, were large photographs of [illegible] Che Guevara and [illegible] other revolutionary leaders.
As Egbuna explained it, the main character in the novel, wrote the "statement" in order to give someone else to read in Hyde Park. The prosecutor argued that it was "a blue-print for a riot and murder" and attempted to have Egbuna state that the words of the main character in the novel were Egbuna's. Egbuna said he disagreed with these particular views but his intention as a writer was to shock the average reader - to make the reader aware of the true conditions and frustrations of the black man in Britain. Contrary to what the prosecution were claiming, "this was a deterrent to violence" because it demanded [illegible] change to prevent an otherwise unavoidable social explosion. Obi continued, If there is a social explosion in Britain a key element in it will be the grievances black people feel about the discriminatory treatment they receive at the hands of the police. Peter Martin in his evidence, that the police, despite their veneer of polite [illegible] and no guns, are as racist-minded as [their] counterparts. Martin was pushed [illegible] threatened with a beating, forced to sign a confession, subjected to psychological pressure and held without being given food. The Lincolnshire [police] and Scotland Yard detectives contradicted [themselves] on the stand - some denied totally that police officials spent time alone with Martin in his cell and others admitted to it.
At the end of the trial, the Recorder of London, Sir Carl Aarvold, in his instructions to the all-white jury, put the question in its baldest terms: if Simon Davies was a liar - and he certainly showed himself a bad witness - and had malicious intent, out to harm the defendants, then the jury had to ask itself how it was possible for Davies to have the cooperation of the police and have his story confirmed by them on several crucial points. After all, the Recorder said, the police were only ordinary people, "like you and me", trying to do their job, "which at times was extremely difficult".
Posed like that - the words of the black militants against the cops - then it was inevitable that Obi Egbuna would be convicted. He was sentenced to one years imprisonment, which was suspended for three years. Peter Martin was also found guilty. Gideon Dolo, midway through the trial, was acquitted of two out of the three charges against him, and finally was acquitted on the third by the jury.
To be held for four months without bail is an intolerable injustice, but for the three black militants the outcome of the trial should be seen as a modest victory. Michael X, another black power militant, received one years imprisonment on a lesser charge under the Race Relations Act only a short time ago. It would seem that the interest displayed in the case by sections of the left - on the October 27th demonstration there were many "Free Obi Egbuna" signs - aroused by the exceptionally long period elapsing before trial, persuaded the authorities to be tolerant. We should learn that a campaign of defence of any of those whom the police sieze from our ranks can be an excellent form of attack against the system.