arrival of truth was subjective and dependent on the specific case and the judge.
Judge Cooper dismissed the defense of the accused as something created “as
an afterthought”; however, this quick dismissal failed to address some of the valid
points raised by the accused, such as one made by Kiswii that the oath did not
take place in his house because of the birth of his child on that day. This
statement, had it been properly investigated, could have helped prove whether or
not an oathing ceremony actually took place. Despite the ambiguities
surrounding aspects of the cases, what is clear is that oathing during the Mau
Mau period was criminalized; those accused were at the mercy of the colonial
courts who often had their own standards, biases, judgments, and notions of
justice.
The Oathing Case of Harun Waau Mutisya, Philip Nthekani Mwo, and Sounsza
Kandu80
On August 16, 1954 at the Supreme Court of Kenya in Nairobi, Harun
Waau Mutisya, Philip Nthekani Mwo, and Sounsza Kandu were convicted of
unlawful oathing.81 This case represents another example of colonial
criminalization associated with Mau Mau oathing activities. This case is important
because in addition to serving as evidence of oathing criminalization during the
1950s, it shows multifaceted sides of the legal proceedings and problems of
80 Reference as Case #127 - Regina versus Harun Waau Mutisya, Philp Nthekani Mwo, and Sounsza
Kandu, KNA MLA 1/1007-CC 127/1954.
8' Warrant OfExecution of Sentence of Death, KNA MLA 1/1007-CC 127/1954. Case #127 Rex vs.
Harun Waau Mutisya, Philip Nthekani Mwo, and Sounsza Kandu. The law stated “being present at and
consenting to the administration of an oath relating to the unlawful society commonly known as Mau Mau,
contrary to section 6 IB of the Penal Code.”
139