The Natal Government's view was that: (i) Suspension of salary was in accordance with universal practice, and the Imperial Colonial Service rules; (ii) only so long as the Chief behaved well and obeyed the laws laid down for his guidance would the salary not be withdrawn, except with the approval of the Secretary of State; (iii) arrest and detention carried with them suspension from the service of the Government,—there was a clear distinction between suspension from office and salary, and withdrawal of an office and salary. It was, moreover, feared that the attitude of the Imperial Government would prejudice the merits of the criminal proceedings being taken against Dinuzulu, as well as embarrass the Natal Government in connection with the demand that had already been made by Dinuzulu's legal advisers for payment of the salary.
The Secretary of State consented neither to suspension nor to withdrawal, and for these, among other, reasons: (i) According to Imperial Colonial Service rules, proceedings for suspension are not taken against a public officer pending criminal proceedings; (ii) the case could not be dealt with as an ordinary civil service appointment,—being without precedent, it should be dealt with on its own merits; (iii) Dinuzulu's position, as Government Induna, could not, even temporarily, be taken away without the approval of the Secretary of State, and, before signifying such approval, it would be necessary for the Natal Government to show satisfactorily that the Chief had contravened the laws laid down for his guidance; suspension, therefore, should follow and not precede the trial; (iv) Dinuzulu must be assumed to be innocent until proved guilty; (v) it was most important, in giving a fair trial, to leave him in possession of means to arrange for his defence.
After several months' correspondence, with no prospect of a solution being arrived at, the Imperial Government decided, on the 21st July, "to pay the amount of Dinuzulu's salary, so far as it had accrued to date," viz. £333 6s. 8d. This decision was at once taken the strongest exception to in Natal and discussed at length a few days later in Parliament, when the Attorney-General (The Hon. T.F. Carter) reviewed the position at length. As, however, the Natal Ministry were equally anxious with His Majesty's Government that the defence should not be prejudiced for lack of funds, the Secretary of State was advised that "whilst maintaining that their (Natal Ministers') contention is correct on question of suspension, ... they are prepared, if approached by Dinuzulu, to provide a sum of money to assist him in his defence." Further discussion thereupon became unnecessary. On the 1st October following, a sum of £500 was paid by the Natal Government to Dinuzulu's agents for the purpose named.
The preliminary examination was finally closed on the 30th July, the prisoner being formally committed for trial before such court as might be directed by the Attorney-General, on the following charges: High treason; public violence; sedition and rebellion; murder of, or being accessory to murder of, or conspiring to murder, Gence; inciting to murder Gence and Mapoyisa; contravening the Firearms Act, 1905. Dinuzulu emphatically declared his innocence. He complained of an opportunity not having been given him of "arranging" his defence. "A selection of criminals," he added, "and of my personal enemies has been made, to testify to deliberate untruths." His indunas Mankulumana and Mgwaqo were committed at the same time, on charges of high treason. The three examinations had extended over the period 23rd December, 1907, to 30th July, 1908.
Early steps were taken by Dinuzulu's friends to obtain the services of one of the ablest lawyers in South Africa. The brief was offered to and accepted by the Hon. W.P. Schreiner, K.C., formerly Premier of the Cape Colony, though Mr. Schreiner did not proceed to Natal until a few days before the trial began.[331]
The notorious rebel Cakijana, after evading the police in Zululand and Natal, proceeded direct to Dinuzulu's friend, Miss Colenso, at Bishopstowe. This took place on the 9th March, during the continuance of martial law, and serves to show how necessary it was to maintain such law in Zululand. Instead of promptly handing him and his companion over to the police, Miss Colenso instructed an attorney at 10 p.m. to take their statements at length. Only by working through the night could this be done, and not till the day following were the rebels put into a cab and conveyed by Miss Colenso to the Chief Commissioner of Police. There is reason to suppose that Dinuzulu or his friends in Pietermaritzburg had directed Cakijana to proceed to Bishopstowe in connection with the defence. Thus, even principal rebels seem to have been acting under the Chief's orders, and this whilst his own preliminary examination on charges of high treason, sedition, murder, etc., was actually in progress.
The question has sometimes been discussed as to the advisability of holding examinations, such as that of Dinuzulu, under the ordinary law, even though, as in this instance, the trial takes place before a specially-constituted court.
In the first place, the offences were of an unusual nature. As they did not fall within the category of ordinary crimes, it would seem they ought to have been treated abnormally. Special procedure was followed in the cases of Langalibalele (in 1874) and Dinuzulu himself (in 1888), whilst, during the Boer War, special courts were again appointed to deal with European prisoners charged with high treason, sedition, etc. Legislative authority under which this could have been done was wanting.
Owing to Dinuzulu's enormous influence in Natal and Zululand, witnesses could be got to give evidence against him only with the greatest difficulty, especially at the outset. Such influence was a most serious obstacle to the Crown. The circumstances were exceptional. Particularly those able to give the most incriminating evidence were in a chronic state of fear, for they knew that a number of loyalists of high and low rank had already been murdered at different times (presumably by the order of Dinuzulu), at any rate it was generally so supposed. In the act of giving evidence unreservedly in open court on behalf of the Crown, they, too, became transformed into "loyalists" and "prominent loyalists," and therefore marked men. Although most of the murderers had, by the time the trial began, been apprehended, none had been tried and punished. There was, therefore, in the eyes of the witnesses, no guarantee that they would not, in some way or other, lose their lives, seeing the friends of Dinuzulu had the right, under the law, of having interviews with him from time to time. As for the witnesses for the defence, they spoke without that peculiar sense of dread which oppressed Native witnesses for the Crown, although every assurance and visible means of protection were afforded the latter by the Government. The spectacle, moreover, of these witnesses being liable to the menacing influences of Dinuzulu and his friends, was extremely detrimental to the prestige of the Government, especially in a country occupied by over a million warlike savages.