perspective of the Supreme Court and thus colonial government, all oathing
practices during the emergency period were Mau Mau related unless it was
government sanctioned, like Mau Mau oath cleansing practices.
The Defense of the Case - “Trumping up a False Case’’71
Many Mau Mau court cases reported a prior relationship between the
witness and the accused. In this case, one of the major areas for defense was
the relationship between the witnesses and the accused. All of the accused
stated that the accounts of Ndivo and Nzibe were false and the result of past
quarrels. To their defense, the witness’ testimonies support a prior relationship.
For example, Ndivo stated that he was “well known to the three accused”72 and
worked for them doing communal work. He also knew them from childhood. The
conflict between Mbwika and Ndivo was described as a bad supervisor-employee
relationship. Mbwika had problems with Ndivo’s working patterns which were
reported to the chiefs and elders.73 It is not clear why the chief and elders were
not called to provide their testimony to this statement, which could have been
evidence of possible conflict between the two parties. Did the accused
understand that this sort of account from outside individuals could have
strengthened his case? Mbwika and Nzibe had conflicts over land and Nzibe
71 Official Judgment Document from C. A. Cooper, H.M Supreme Court of Kenya on October 14th, 1954 on
Emergency Trial No. 103 of 1954. KNA MLA 1/986-CC 103/1954. Case #103 Rex vs. Ruben Mbwika,
Nathan Kiswii, and Nguma Muindi. P. 6.
72 Official Judgment Document from C. A. Cooper, H.M Supreme Court of Kenya on October 14th, 1954 on
Emergency Trial No. 103 of 1954. KNA MLA 1/986-CC 103/1954. Case #103 Rex vs. Ruben Mbwika,
Nathan Kiswii, and Nguma Muindi. P. 4.
73 Official Judgment Document from C. A. Cooper, H.M Supreme Court of Kenya on October 14th, 1954 on
Emergency Trial No. 103 of 1954. KNA MLA 1/986-CC 103/1954. Case #103 Rex vs. Ruben Mbwika,
Nathan Kiswii, and Nguma Muindi. P. 5.
135