Similarly, Kandu was also kept in the dark on the charges. And again, it is
questionable whether or not they understood the judicial process and if they had
time to prepare by finding witness accounts. Why was Kandu separated from
everyone else? Was this supposed to stop the spreading of Mau Mau oathing, or
was it to limit individual accounts that could come forth as a witness to Kandu?
After all of the deliberations commenced, Mr. Oulton, working on behalf of
the crown, addressed the court with his remarks that the witness’ statements
were proof of the crime. He continues, holding that”...this case is particularly
strong since there are two witnesses confirming each other.”94 Nguku and Muteti
were not arrested because they voluntarily reported being forced to take the Mau
Mau oath; they reported this information late because both were sick. Mr.
Khanna, for the defense, stated that the witness accounts were not reliable and
contained a lot of discrepancies. He also mentioned that “the two statements
tally so closely that it looks as if they have put their heads together.” 95 He also
questioned the oathing ceremony details provided by the police that contradicted
what was presented in court. Khanna also questioned how Nguku was able to
walk to see his uncle but unable to report the oathing incident.96
On August 16, 1954, two assessors were present to provide their verdict
on the case. Because on many of the accounts the accused were found not
94 Closing Statement of Mr. Oulton. Case file 127 notes, KNA MLA 1/1007-CC 127/1954. Rex vs. Harun
Waau Mutisya, Philip Nthekani Mwo, and Sounsza Kandu. P 17.
95 Closing Statement of Mr. Khanna. Case file 127 notes, KNA MLA 1/1007-CC 127/1954. Rex vs. Harun
Waau Mutisya, Philip Nthekani Mwo, and Sounsza Kandu. P 17.
96 Testimony of Mr. Khanna . Case file 127 notes, KNA MLA 1/1007-CC 127/1954. Rex vs. Harun Waau
Mutisya, Philip Nthekani Mwo, and Sounsza Kandu. P 11.
146