That there might be no doubt at all upon the subject, the prisoner was denied the help of counsel, white or black, in the hearing of his case, even to watch the proceedings on his behalf, or to cross-examine the witnesses; consequently the official record of the trial can only be looked upon as an _ex parte_ statement of the case, derived from witnesses selected by the Supreme Chief,[21] examined by the Crown Prosecutor, and not cross-examined at all on the prisoner’s behalf, although the assistance of counsel was recognised by the Crown Prosecutor himself as being in accordance with Kafir law.[22] But the formation of the court and its whole proceedings were palpably absurd, except for the purpose of securing a conviction; and that this was the case was generally understood in Natal, Even those colonists who were most violent against the so-called “rebel,” and would have had him hanged without mercy, asserting that he had been “taken red-handed,” saw that the authorities had put themselves in the wrong by granting the prisoner a trial against the justice of which so much could be alleged. In point of fact, the Lieut.-Governor had no power to form a court such as that by which Langalibalele was tried, consisting of his excellency himself as Supreme Chief, the Secretary for Native Affairs, certain administrators of native law, and certain native chiefs and indunas. Besides which the Lieut.-Governor was not only debarred by an ordinance of the colony[23] from sitting as judge in such a court, from which he would be the sole judge in a court of appeal, but had already committed himself to a decision adverse to the prisoner by having issued the proclamation of November 11th, 1873, declaring that the chief and his tribe had “set themselves in open revolt and rebellion against Her Majesty’s Government in this colony,” and “proclaiming and making known that they were in rebellion, and were hereby declared to be outlaws,” and that “the said tribe was broken up, and from that day forth had ceased to exist,” and by further seizing and confiscating all the cattle and property of the said tribe within reach, deposing Langalibalele from his chieftainship, and otherwise treating him and his tribe as rebels. His Excellency, therefore, could not possibly be looked upon as an unprejudiced judge of the first instance in the prisoner’s case; nor could the Secretary for Native Affairs, Mr. Shepstone, by whose advice and with whose approval the expedition had been undertaken. As to the minor members of the court, they could hardly be expected to have an independent opinion in the matter, especially the “native chiefs and indunas,” who knew very well that they would be liable to the accusation of disaffection themselves if they ventured to show any bearing towards the prisoner, or to do otherwise than blindly follow the lead of their white “brother-judges” (!) and masters.