beliefs were largely directed towards monitoring, criminalizing, and suppressing
traditional practices.85 But, Mau Mau was large scale evidence that the
government was not in control and that there were supernatural forces and
powers at work that were clearly beyond the control of the British Administration.
The willingness for Africans to die in the fight, and the unpredictable violent
nature of the movement took the British officials by surprise, and they scrambled
to take control of the situation.86
The implementation of the colonial purification policy was disseminated
throughout various regions surrounding Nairobi in varying fashions. The colonial
government intervened by forcing those that took the oath to undergo
governmental sanctioned cleansings. For example, Muteti Manyi surrendered
himself to the police after being forced to take the Mau Mau oath. He states in
his written account of the episode, “The police then took us to Kikoko...there we
stayed until we swore the cleansing oath. We were put in a barbed-wire
enclosure guarded by the police until we swore the cleansing oath.”87 The
purification process for Mau Mau participants through the local chiefs meant the
chiefs used local specialists to conduct the ceremony in the village. In a
testimony of cleansing activity, Chief Patrais Mulumba of the Kilungu location
states:
85 KNA files of the Attorney General’s Office - Criminal Jurisdiction: witchcraft cases, File 100, date range
of files from 1925-1951. Activity started with the Colonial Witchcraft Ordinance of 1925. Mau Mau
oathing was believed by some in the colonial government as practicing “witchcraft” as a strategy for anti-
colonial resistance.
86 For the severity of the Mau Mau, See Anderson, Histories of the Hanged and Elkins, Imperial
Reckoning.
87 Testimony of Muteti Manyi. Case file 127 notes, KNA MLA 1/1007-CC 127/1954. Rex vs. Harun Waau
Mutisya, Philip Nthekani Mwo, and Sounsza Kandu. P 10.
217