independence from the British. During this period, oathing also became the
target of British imposed criminality and attacks on the Mau Mau movement.
Oathing was interpreted by various parties as either a despicable and evil act or
a heroic practice fostering unity that eventually led to Kenyan independence
depending on one’s interpretation. Today in Kenya, there has been a resurgence
of former oathing practices by the Mungiki politico-religious movement to fight
economic disparity.3 In an article in the Nairobi Chronicle on April 26, 2009, the
roots of Mungiki are explained as “complex and stretch back a hundred years. It
has to do with colonialism, Mau Mau, poverty, oppression, and globalization...it is
the product of a failed state under the leadership of a cruel elite.”4 In many
instances, oathing is met with governmental resistance and associated with
criminal acts. However, forthose who oath, the practice is viewed as a source of
agency for justice.
Although oathing is a practice that has long been embedded in the fabric
of Kenyan society, it remains a topic of ambiguity, mystery, ignorance, and
distortion. Oathing, since the 1950s, has been successful in creating
organization, unity, secrecy, and resistance threatening and alarming post-
colonial governmental regimes. Oathing in Kenya like witchcraft or any other
alternative form of power that challenges mainstream political structure, has been
deliberately criminalized and suppressed as a form of control. As a result,
detailed oathing reports have been silenced, leaving the oathing acts, practices,
3 See Paul Harris, “Mau Mau returns to Kenya,” Sydney Morning Herald, January 17, 2000,
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/36/260.html. Muthui Mwai, “What Makes Mungiki Tick,” The
Nation (Nairobi), October 23, 2000, http://www,hartford-hwp.com/archives/36/248.html.
4 Article on the Mungiki, “Mungiki: Truth and Fiction,” The Nairobi Chronicle, April 26, 2009,
http ://nairobiehroniele. wordpress. com∕2009∕04/26/mungiki-truth-and-fiction/.