abuse and reported being beaten to the local police. The accusations resulted in
Kioko’s month long imprisonment. Mr. Mutsya won contestations because he
was able to pay bribes. Mr. Kioko Musinga’s solution was the possible application
of the Kithitu oath7 which he felt would restore justice. Mr. Kioko Musinga stated
that the oath was not influenced by bribe but only responds to truth.8 Despite the
conversation and his frustration, Mr. Kioko Musinga ultimately decided not to
invoke oathing as the solution. The reasons were not completely clear. Perhaps
he felt the measure was too extreme even though he felt he was being treated
unjust. Based on follow up inquiries, the two neighbors continue to contest land
boundaries.
This is an example of the continuation of oathing in modern Kenya.
Although this conversation occurred over breakfast, it was a discussion treated
delicately. Generally, it is not a topic openly discussed as it is currently viewed
as an act of criminality.9 Although there have been strong maneuvers to
suppress oathing rites, it remains meaningful to those that believe in the power of
the oath. It is an activity that was once vital to judicial matters but now forced
underground and heard only in whispers. Oathing is feared and considered
extremely dangerous because it is believed that the guilty die. The power of the
oath is achieved through cultural constructs, memory, and beliefs about the
practice. It can be used to control, change, and shape unjust situations to bring
forth justice. This breakfast conversation in Nairobi was the beginning of my
7 Personal Communication, K. Musinga, February 2009, Nairobi, Kenya
8 K. Musinga stated “the Kithitu do not know bribe” as his justification. February 2009, Nairobi, Kenya.
9 Interview, R.Simiyu, Emerald Initiative Kenyan Association, January 2010, Texas, United States.