The name is absent

guilty, it was surprising that the final verdict was guilty.⁹⁷ The statements of the
assessors all indicated doubt and took into consideration the alibi of the accused.
But in the end, the colonial notions Ofjustice prevailed.⁹⁸ The case then leaves
us with another example of how oathing was criminalized and punished during
the Mau Mau period.

Analysis of the Oathing Cases

The cases were selected to provide a detailed examination of the
courtroom dramas and how the colonial law in Kenya was administered during
the Mau Mau war. These court cases show examples of the contestations
between Africans and Europeans regarding the Mau Mau oath. The cases were
facilitated and judged by colonial referees, but also involved African assessors.
The cases provide an opportunity to examine how oathing was imagined,
described, understood, and then criminalized while also showing how the
evidence, testimonies, and verdicts were subjective and dependent on the
political environment. What is most evident in the cases is that colonial power
was manifested through an imposed foreign legal system to control African
behavior and to protect European interests. Everyone played a role in the drama.
Some played well rehearsed parts, as with witness testimonies, while others may
not have even known they were on stage until it was too late.

The cases show that witness accounts were often one-sided. There was
obvious silence in the files on the defendant side. Was this silence because of
⁹⁷ Case file 127 notes, KNA MLA 1/1007-CC 127/1954. Rex vs. Harun Waau Mutisya, Philip Nthekani
Mwo, and Sounsza Kandu. P 19.

⁹⁸ Justice of the accused is questionable.

147

<<   155   156   157   158   159   160   161   >>

More intriguing information