The name is absent

oath you gave me but a foreign one”. ⁶⁴ In terms of the case, this question by the
accused challenged the witness based on the Akamba age traditions. If the
accused already understood this difference about the oath, it is questionable why
he spent time analyzing this nuisance in the court. However, the fact that he did
not follow up left the issue dead. But if he knew more about the oathing ritual he
could have followed up with another question such as, “Although it is foreign,
doesn’t it adhere to some basic Akamba principles like the application of
repeating power acts seven times?” In other words, the answer to the question
was predictable; therefore, the accused should have used his knowledge on the
oathing ritual process to find a breakdown in the witness’ argument. However,
not knowing the details of the oath worked to his disadvantage because he was
unable to successfully show innocence.

This interrogation is revealing because it shows how the oath had evolved
into something “foreign” or different from the past. This situation showed how the
boundaries of age, like gender, were crossed in the administration of the Mau
Mau oath. Yet, as the accused pointed out, it was still viewed by many as an
oath of tradition. The reality was that they both were right in their interpretation of
the Akamba Mau Mau oath. As was discussed in the previous chapter, it was an
oath of the past that transformed to meet the new challenges of the time and that
crossed previously fixed lines.

⁶⁴ Testimony of, Kamba S/О Ngoi Mkamba, Third Class Magistrate Court at Machakos, case 60, 1953.
KNAMLA 1/791 p. 4.

132

<<   140   141   142   143   144   145   146   >>

More intriguing information