Meehan admitted that he was not able to properly identify the accused in saying,
“I think that the man in the middle in the dock is the one. I cannot now recognize
in Court the man from whom I took the statement as seven months have elapsed
since I took the statement.”83 His written account included his cautionary
statement to the accused that “whatever you say will be written down and may be
given in evidence against you.”84 Mutisya’s statement was collected in Kiswahili,
but was written down in English and then read back for verification in Kiswahili.
However, in the cross examined statements, Meehan explained that even though
the accused was Mkamba, he did not utilize an interpreter because the accused
was able to speak Swahili. He stated, “I doubt whether he learned Swahili in a
school. I should not say his knowledge of the language was extensive. I had to
paraphrase the wording of the caution in simple language in order that he might
understand it.” Although Mutisya was suspected of participating in oathing, he
was never charged with a related offense.85 Mutisya’s confession did not mention
administering the oath to Nguku and Manyi.
The testimony of Meehan raises questions about the guilt or innocence of
Mutisya. First of all, Meehan was unable to confidently identify the accused.
Second, it is not clear if the accused truly understood the legal ramifications of
confession or even if he understood that he was confessing at all. It is difficult to
really know because of the cultural and language barriers.
83 Written Testimony of Michael Digy Meehan, Case file 127 notes, KNA MLA 1/1007-CC 127/1954. Rex
vs. Harun Waau Mutisya, Philip Nthekani Mwo, and Sounsza Kandu.
84 Written Testimony of Michael Digy Meehan, Case file 127 notes, KNA MLA 1/1007-CC 127/1954.
Rex vs. Harun Waau Mutisya, Philip Nthekani Mwo, and Sounsza Kandu. P 4-5
85 Written Testimony OfMichael Digy Meehan, Case file 127 notes, KNA MLA 1/1007-CC 127/1954.
Rex vs. Harun Waau Mutisya, Philip Nthekani Mwo, and Sounsza Kandu. P. 4-5
14+1