Yesterday, Kenya’s Mau Mau veterans launched a case against the British government over human rights abuses during the struggle for Kenya’s independence in the 1950s and early 1960s. The complainants, three men and two women, are seeking compensations from the British government for the atrocities caused to them under the British colonial rule. This is not the first time it is happening.
In March 2005, Hon Kiraitu Murungi, the then Kenya’s Minister for Justice, demanded for an apology from the British government for the atrocities its colonial rule committed against Mau Mau fighters. This was at the launching of Prof Caroline Elkin’s Britain's Gulag: The Brutal End of Empire--Pulitzer prize-winning book that strikingly reveals the scale of British brutality in Kenya, especially in 1950s. In response, the British Government said, “But this took place 50 years ago. Kenya needs to look to future challenges like fighting corruption, fighting injustice and building a strong democracy” (according to the BBC news).
Even this time round not only is the British government advancing its “but this took place 50 years ago” argument, it is also adding to it a new twist. According to Martyn Day, the Veterans’ lawyer, the British government argues that since the atrocities happened in Kenya, the veterans should sue the Kenyan government and not the British government.
This to me seriously doesn’t make any sense. I have limited or no knowledge on legal framework both local and international, at least as of now. But I don't need to consult faculties of law to pass my judgment here. On the 'time premise,' common sense dictates that there is no way Mau Mau veterans would have organized themselves to challenge the Wazungus. Why? 1) The British had already left and there is no way they were going to file a lawsuit against a foreign country in Kenya. 2) They would not have been allowed to chase on the British to London because i) I don’t see how the British High Commission (if we ever had one) was going to issue visas to “terrorists”, and ii) who would have paid for their tickets? Again, I think this is common sense.
But the most ridiculous one is this second claim. That Mau Mau should sue the Kenyan government. This is how I look at it. Ideally Mau Mau veterans should be the Kenyan government. I mean it is them who fought for independence and so after the independence they should have formed the government—well initially this what happened i.e. Kenyatta and his cronies (deservedly?) took over the governance. So in this case it is like saying let the Kenyan government sue the Kenyan government. They are saying that let Kenya sue Kenya for the damages we (the British) caused. Don't even bother digesting that; it just doesn’t make sense.
By the way why are we suing these guys in a London court? Aren’t we meant to be taking them to The Hague? Oh well, it doesn’t make a difference anyway they write and repeal the international law on a whim, they appoint the judges and the jury at the ICC, they pay for everything including claimants’ lawyers. And by the way did you know that ICC only prosecute crimes committed on or after 1 July 2002? Do you read something there? Did I say zero dollars equals zero rights!
The bottom line here is that I support the veterans pursuit for justice. I contend that the British government, if indeed they hope to remain our genuine ‘friends,’ should explicitly and unambiguously gesture remorse to the abuses against humanity in Kenya, even if they were done a century ago. We are ready to forgive, but you don't forgive where there exists not an apology. Looking to the future challenges has to entail acknowledging and understanding the past.
(And by the way, could somebody tell me what happened to Africans/Kenyans who fought in the World War II? Those who died: where were they buried? Normandy? Those alive: are they ever honored as the American and the British and the French ones are?)
In March 2005, Hon Kiraitu Murungi, the then Kenya’s Minister for Justice, demanded for an apology from the British government for the atrocities its colonial rule committed against Mau Mau fighters. This was at the launching of Prof Caroline Elkin’s Britain's Gulag: The Brutal End of Empire--Pulitzer prize-winning book that strikingly reveals the scale of British brutality in Kenya, especially in 1950s. In response, the British Government said, “But this took place 50 years ago. Kenya needs to look to future challenges like fighting corruption, fighting injustice and building a strong democracy” (according to the BBC news).
Even this time round not only is the British government advancing its “but this took place 50 years ago” argument, it is also adding to it a new twist. According to Martyn Day, the Veterans’ lawyer, the British government argues that since the atrocities happened in Kenya, the veterans should sue the Kenyan government and not the British government.
This to me seriously doesn’t make any sense. I have limited or no knowledge on legal framework both local and international, at least as of now. But I don't need to consult faculties of law to pass my judgment here. On the 'time premise,' common sense dictates that there is no way Mau Mau veterans would have organized themselves to challenge the Wazungus. Why? 1) The British had already left and there is no way they were going to file a lawsuit against a foreign country in Kenya. 2) They would not have been allowed to chase on the British to London because i) I don’t see how the British High Commission (if we ever had one) was going to issue visas to “terrorists”, and ii) who would have paid for their tickets? Again, I think this is common sense.
But the most ridiculous one is this second claim. That Mau Mau should sue the Kenyan government. This is how I look at it. Ideally Mau Mau veterans should be the Kenyan government. I mean it is them who fought for independence and so after the independence they should have formed the government—well initially this what happened i.e. Kenyatta and his cronies (deservedly?) took over the governance. So in this case it is like saying let the Kenyan government sue the Kenyan government. They are saying that let Kenya sue Kenya for the damages we (the British) caused. Don't even bother digesting that; it just doesn’t make sense.
By the way why are we suing these guys in a London court? Aren’t we meant to be taking them to The Hague? Oh well, it doesn’t make a difference anyway they write and repeal the international law on a whim, they appoint the judges and the jury at the ICC, they pay for everything including claimants’ lawyers. And by the way did you know that ICC only prosecute crimes committed on or after 1 July 2002? Do you read something there? Did I say zero dollars equals zero rights!
The bottom line here is that I support the veterans pursuit for justice. I contend that the British government, if indeed they hope to remain our genuine ‘friends,’ should explicitly and unambiguously gesture remorse to the abuses against humanity in Kenya, even if they were done a century ago. We are ready to forgive, but you don't forgive where there exists not an apology. Looking to the future challenges has to entail acknowledging and understanding the past.
(And by the way, could somebody tell me what happened to Africans/Kenyans who fought in the World War II? Those who died: where were they buried? Normandy? Those alive: are they ever honored as the American and the British and the French ones are?)
No comments:
Post a Comment