The name is absent

went myself. I went to the police on the 2^πd February, 1954.”⁹⁰ Nguku also
reports that he knew the accused before the oathing activities but was not on
speaking and visiting terms with them. After his oathing confession, Nguku was
detained for two months. After his oath cleansing, he was penalized by
conducting digging work. He also mentions that he was not receiving any reward
from the police for helping with the arrest of the accused.

Nguku claims that he did not report the incident earlier to the police
because he was ill from the beating and not able to see. Thus he could not go to
the police because he could not “see to walk”. He also mentioned that he lived
alone, suggesting that no one was available to help. As a result, no one was told
to report the incident to the police. However, later in his account in describing his
relationship to Muteti, he explained that he was his cousin who, “Since the
incident we have stayed together the whole time"; before the incident he was in
Mombasa. It is unclear why Muteti, since he was also involved in the oathing, did
not go to report the occurrence or walk his cousin to the police station.

In summary, there are many lingering questions regarding the statements
collected. For example, Nguku claims that he was not a police informant. But, it is
difficult to really know the truth. The application of witness testimonies as sole
grounds for prosecution and uncontested evidence is problematic, especially in a
desperate and unpredictable environment. Again, a similar theme of accounts is
being rehearsed. Another question is regarding the translations with the archival

⁹⁰ Testimony OfKasinaNguku, Case file 127 notes, KNA MLA 1/1007-CC 127/1954. Rex vs. Harun
Waau Mutisya, Philip Nthekani Mwo, and Sounsza Kandu. P 6.

143

<<   151   152   153   154   155   156   157   >>

More intriguing information