Mau Mau uprising: Kenyans win UK torture ruling

 

The claimants, (l-r) Jane Muthoni Mara, Wambuga Wa Nyingi and Paulo Muoka Nzili celebrated the news in Nairobi, Kenya

Related Stories

Three Kenyans who were tortured by British colonial authorities can proceed with their legal claims against the UK government, a court has ruled.

London's High Court ruled the case, relating to the 1950s Mau Mau uprising, could proceed despite the time elapsed.

The ruling means the case will now go to a full trial. Lawyers for the three hailed it as a "historic" judgement.

The government accepts the colonial administration tortured detainees but denies liability and will appeal.

Thousands of people were killed during the Mau Mau revolt against British rule in Kenya in the 1950s and 1960s.

The government had initially argued that all liabilities for the torture by colonial authorities were transferred to the Kenyan Republic upon independence in 1963 and that it could not be held liable now.

Lawyer Martyn Day (l) and supporters of a group of Kenyans who allege abuse by British colonial authorities celebrate as they leave the High Court Lawyer Martyn Day (l) described the judgement as historic

But in 2011, the High Court ruled the claimants - Paulo Muoka Nzili, Wambuga Wa Nyingi and Jane Muthoni Mara - did have "arguable cases in law".

Their lawyers allege that Mr Nzili was castrated, Mr Nyingi was severely beaten and Mrs Mara was subjected to appalling sexual abuse in detention camps during the rebellion. A fourth claimant, Ndiku Mutwiwa Mutua, died earlier this year.

After the 2011 ruling, the case went back to the High Court in July to consider a claim by the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) that the actions had been brought outside the legal time limit. The FCO said it faced "irredeemable difficulties" in relation to the availability of witnesses and documents.

'Morally repugnant'

But on Friday, Mr Justice McCombe ruled the victims had established a proper case for the court to exercise its discretion and allowed their claims to proceed to trial.

Analysis

As the news filtered through, several dozen elderly Kenyans erupted into cheers. They linked arms and danced through the grounds of the Kenya Human Rights Commission, which has been supporting the claimants.

For them, and other veterans of the Mau Mau struggle, today's judgement was a significant victory.

But elsewhere in Kenya the case has received little attention. Only a handful of reporters from the Kenyan media turned up to cover the reaction from the veterans themselves.

There are historical reasons for this. Many of those who found themselves in power following independence in 1963 had previously been associated with the Home Guard: those who fought with the British colonial authorities against the Mau Mau rebels.

When independence came, many believed this chapter in Kenya's recent history would sow division rather than foster unity. The elderly veterans of that struggle are still fighting for recognition, both at home and abroad.

In his ruling, the judge said: "A fair trial for the Kenyans on this part of the case does remain possible and the evidence on both sides does remain significantly cogent for the court to complete its task satisfactorily."

A lawyer for the three said the claimants had not been in court because they were in the Kenyan capital Nairobi, but they were "absolutely delighted" when they learned of the result.

Martyn Day said lawyers would be pressing for a trial "as quickly as possible" but they would also be pushing for the government to reach an out-of-court settlement.

"This is a historic judgement which will reverberate around the world and will have repercussions for years to come," he said in a separate statement.

"The British government has admitted that these three Kenyans were brutally tortured by the British colony and yet they have been hiding behind technical legal defences for three years in order to avoid any legal responsibility. This was always morally repugnant and today the judge has also rejected these arguments."

He added: "Following this judgement we can but hope that our government will at last do the honourable thing and sit down and resolve these claims. There will undoubtedly be victims of colonial torture from Malaya to the Yemen, from Cyprus to Palestine, who will be reading this judgement with great care."

Written evidence from the three Kenyans sheds light on their treatment at the hands of colonial forces:

  • Mr Nyingi, 84, a father of 16, said he was arrested in 1952 and detained for about nine years. In one incident in 1959 he said he was beaten unconscious and still bears marks from leg manacles, whipping and caning. "I have brought this case because I want the world to know about the years I have lost and what was taken from a generation of Kenyans, he said
  • Mr Nzili, 85, said he was stripped, chained and castrated shortly after being arrested in 1957. "I felt completely destroyed and without hope," he said
  • Ms Mara, 73, said she was 15 when she was raped at a detention camp. "I want the British citizens of today to know what their forefathers did to me and to so many others. These crimes cannot go unpunished and forgotten," she said
'Understand the pain'

A spokesman for the FCO said the judgement had "potentially significant and far-reaching legal implications".

Background

  • The Mau Mau, a guerrilla group, began a violent campaign against white settlers in 1952
  • The uprising was eventually put down by the British colonial government
  • The Kenya Human Rights Commission says 90,000 Kenyans were executed, tortured or maimed
  • It says 160,000 people were detained in appalling conditions
  • Kenya gained independence in 1963

"The normal time limit for bringing a civil action is three to six years. In this case that period has been extended to over 50 years despite the fact that the key decision-makers are dead and unable to give their account of what happened," the spokesman said.

"Since this is an important legal issue, we have taken the decision to appeal. In light of the legal proceedings it would not be appropriate for the government to comment any further on the detail of the case."

The spokesman reiterated that the government did not dispute that each of the claimants suffered torture at the hands of colonial forces.

"We have always said that we understand the pain and grievance felt by those, on all sides, who were involved in the divisive and bloody events of the emergency period in Kenya, and it is right that those who feel they have a case are free to take it to the courts," he said.

 

More on This Story

Related Stories

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 553.

    That is hardly the point here, these people did not deserve to be treated in that way regardless of who was doing the torturing. They have a right to make it known what went on and to persue some sort of justice. The Nazi's were persecuted for their crimes ...

  • rate this
    +3

    Comment number 552.

    532. nugget

    and? Seriously, are you saying the Mau mau were saints? Go to Africa today and you'll find that happening daily. Its also interesting to find out who committed this act. A white man or a Kenyan. Kenyans and Africans in general were complicit with what happened in Africa's history. The slave trade wasn't invented by a European.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 551.

    I bet these "floodgates" are swiftly shut on appeal.

  • rate this
    -6

    Comment number 550.

    I cant believe the chorus of condemnation for the victims and the disapproval to the court ruling. Kenyans never invited Britain to their country, never asked to be colonised/civilised. Your government forcefully moved populations to create white farms. Out of this mau mau was born. You committed war crimes. If the rape and torture were to you or those close to you, would you be more tolerant?

  • rate this
    +5

    Comment number 549.

    I am living in a real world, terrorists can sue the UK government for something that is alleged to have happened fifty years ago. As these people are living in Kenya are they receiving legal aid from this government so they can sue the government. If they had to pay their own legal fee's this case would never be brought, it's just more money for the ambulance chasing lawyers.

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 548.

    #519
    Maybe because an apology for somthing you did not do nor were involved in is no appology at all, merely hollow words.
    #521
    If there is evidence implicating our head of state I'm all for it being heard where it should be, in the Hague, with proper punishment if guilty, not taking money from those who had nothing to do with it!

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 547.

    Perhaps we should forgive and forget 7/7 as well then? or the twin towers... The Mau Mau were outside of normal human interchange and reasoning... War is War - you fight to win, not play around like the so called military's of 'civilized' Nations

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 546.

    The people who ordered the torture are the same people who are leading the way for the compensation at the British tax payers expense.

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 545.

    I was very young but I too can remember the terrible atrocities dealt out by the Mau Mau. Perhaps our victims can sue for compensation.

    How far do we go back in the search for compensation? Back to the Battle of Waterloo perhaps.

    I feel it might be an idea to limit the number of years one can go back to going to court over an event that happened ex number of years ago.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 544.

    This happened many many years ago. What next? Germany apologising to Poland? France apologising to England for 1066?

  • rate this
    -1

    Comment number 543.

    What the high court ruling proves is that UK law is drawn up without a shred of common sense, without regard for unintended consequences. Still, if our own atom bomb guinea-pigs can't get compensation one would hope that this lot can't. Torture has been a worldwide tragedy since the beginning of humanity. This opens the door to billions of claims worldwide.

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 542.

    If i had been castrated by the forces of "law and order" as some of the plaintiffs have, i suspect it would be Hard to forgive and FORGET

  • rate this
    -5

    Comment number 541.

    Good!

    This shows that Britain is a civilized country that respects the rule of law.

    The atrocities (committed mainly by local Kenyans under British command against their countrymen) was a hideous stain on the British reputation. This has now been redeemed - while the ex-colonial world is mired in various types of moral depravity, the "mother country" has redeemed herself! Makes you proud!

  • rate this
    +8

    Comment number 540.

    This ruling takes no account of the atrocities carried out by Mau Mau. Killing children in front of their parents and using their mashed up brains in a soup that was fed to the parents. That is one way Mau Mau spread. The Courts of Great Britain are being made fools by the backers of these murderers.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 539.

    I

  • rate this
    +7

    Comment number 538.

    That lawyer looks thrilled - he must have his money in the Caymans or something. He can't be a British taxpayer surely.

  • rate this
    +8

    Comment number 537.

    Wanted- lawyer to sue the German government and aircraft manufacturers for the bombing of the east end of London. My granny didn't get a penny.

  • rate this
    -1

    Comment number 536.

    512. forget the drama please. you don't acquire dementia. It may be a sad story but the Mongols did worse etc etc. what do you want to do sue Gengus Khan?!!!

  • Comment number 535.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • rate this
    +4

    Comment number 534.

    So this should open the way for the victims of the Mau Mau to sue for compensation, should it not? The atrocities committed by them were far worse than anything that the British troops may have done. That doesn't excuse the British behaviour but this does seem like a very belated and one-sided affair.

 

Page 9 of 36

 

More UK stories

RSS

Features

  • Peaky Blinders publicity shotBrum do

    Why is the Birmingham accent so difficult to mimic?


  • Oliver CromwellA brief history

    The 900-year-story behind the creation of a UK parliament


  • Beer and alcoholAbstinence wars

    The struggle to claim the month of October


  • Image of Ankor Wat using lidarJungle Atlantis

    How lasers have revealed an ancient city beneath the forest


  • Tesco signBest before?

    Has Tesco passed its sell-by date, asks Richard Anderson


BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.