Government admits Kenyans were tortured by colonial forces

[Bernkastel]

From The Independant. The Title is shortened from that of the article in order to fit here.

The British government admitted publicly for the first time today that Kenyans were tortured and sexually abused by colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising. The starling admission came as a trio of elderly Kenyans stood up in court to describe how they were beaten, castrated and sexually assaulted by British forces and their Kenyan allies during the pro-independence rebellion.

The three Kenyans are suing the Government in a landmark legal case that could lead to a deluge of compensation claims from victims of British colonial violence around the world. As the first of the three witnesses took the stand this morning in the High Court, the government’s defence lawyer, Guy Mansfield QC, stated publicly that his clients believed those bringing the case are telling the truth about the horrendous violence they suffered.

“I wish to make it clear before I cross examine the three claimants that the defendant [the British Government] does not dispute that each of the claimants suffered torture and other ill treatment at the hands of the colonial administration.” His comments are the first time someone speaking on behalf of the British government has recognised in a court of law the violence meted out to Mau Mau rebels and suspected sympathisers. The rebellion took place between 1952 and 1960, resulting in thousands of deaths as Kenyans began agitating for independence. Atrocities were committed on both sides with widespread complaints of systematic torture and abuse carried out in a network of British run prison camps. Given the elderly age of the three Kenyans and their inability to speak English, most of this morning’s testimony revolved around the two men and one woman publicly confirming that their witness statements to the court are correct.

Their statements, which were made public yesterday, make for harrowing reading and paint a devastating picture of how Britain’s colonial forces behaved in East Africa during the 1950s.

Paulo Nzili, an 83-year-old man from eastern Kenya, was working on a white settler farm when he was abducted by Mau Mau fighters in 1957 and forced into their independence struggle. He ran away after six months but was arrested on the outskirts of Nairobi. He testified that he was taken to Embakasi, a notorious prison camp which was run by a sadistic police officer called Mr Dunman who was known for castrating suspected Mau Mau fighters. Running away from the movement was no defence. On the fourth day inside the camp Mr Nzili was publicly castrated with a pair of pliers normally used on cattle.

“After I was castrated I thought that I had been cut off from any sexual life and that I would never be able to marry and have children, which is a man’s pride,” he said. “I felt completely destroyed and without hope”. Human rights groups say numerous Kenyans have testified to being castrated at camps run by Mr Dunman and other detention centres. Wambuga Wa Nyingi avoided castration but was imprisoned for nearly ten years. He says he was regularly beaten in British custody. On one day he saw 14 detainees beaten to death with batons by British and Kenyan loyalist guards.

Speaking on the witness stand yesterday he explained why he knew his guards were part of the British Empire. “They were all on the side of the foreign government,” he said. “They would wear this thing that identified themselves as home guard or colonial army.” The witness testimonies also detail how sexual violence towards women was rampant in British controlled custody. Jane Muthoni Mara was 15-years-old when she was arrested for being a suspected Mau Mau sympathiser and taken to the Gatithi screening camp. According to her witness statements she was regularly beaten and in once instant had a glass soda bottle forcibly inserted into her vagina.

“I was in so much pain I could not stop crying or screaming,” she said. “I felt completely and utterly violated by this sexual torture.” Kenyan human rights groups and historians have collected multiple testimonies from women which suggest that sexual violence of this kind was commonplace within colonial run camps. The government is trying to have the Kenyans’ case thrown out arguing that as so much time has passed between the events and legal action it would be impossible to have a fair trial. Many of those accused of committing crimes have passed on. They also say the Kenyans should have brought their case sooner.

“Without those witnesses, and indeed with the necessarily limited recollections of those who do survive, the very complicated and difficult task of determining the competing factual positions cannot be fairly conducted," argued Mr Mansfield. “There is a dearth of evidence which can be given as to what was in people's minds when they made decisions and sent or read telegrams or attended meetings or were told of matters or visited places.”

However the Kenyans’ legal team counter that the allegations of torture against British colonial forces are extensively backed up by multiple sources, including a vast trove of previously secret government documents that were made available last year. They argue that because the Mau Mau were a proscribed organisation in Kenya until 2003 they could not have brought their legal challenge any sooner. The case is expected to last two weeks.

Naturally, as indicated in the article, the British government is trying to weasel its way out of giving other Kenyans a chance for justice. Yet at least this is a step in the right direction.

[The Yosemite Bear]

I wonder how long before they release the stuff involving breaker morant?

[Thanas]

Torture has always been a part of the British colonial empire and of waging war the British way, it is no wonder they would use it on suspected rebels. I mean, they used it on their own citizens and foreign agents in WWII, so why should a few rebels be treated any differently?

[Simon_Jester]

While I'm all for Britain (like Japan) owning up to war crimes it committed in occupied colonial territory...

Something about that argument bothers me. Turn it around- how many other nations would we say are 'inherently evil,' if we assume what they did wrong in one decade makes them evil in other decades? Is there something uniquely British about torturing people? Because I didn't get that memo.

[madd0ct0r]

we were very very good at it, the most powerful of the colonial empires and have a cultural memory of that coupled with a respect for 'playing fair'.

It's not quite guilt, more of a realization 'yeah, we were murdering bastards, and given the same situation, we'd probably do the same thing.'

[The Yosemite Bear]

hey us your small pox blanket genociding children aren't exactly complaining about it...

[Simon_Jester]

It sort of strikes a false note with me, though, when someone implies that this is inherent, a "British way" somehow special to Britain. It feels hypocritical. Especially when the example they use is World War Two, where the British don't exactly top the list of atrocity-committers...

I mean, the inhabitants of basically every country in Africa would dispute the idea that enslavement, oppression, torture and cruelty were a "British way" as opposed to a "white way;" surely the people of the Congo or Namibia deserve to have a say in this too.

[The Yosemite Bear]

not to mention some of Africa's native heads of state can be even worse..., hell it's all hypocracy since there is no clean, civilized culture on earth. Down to it, humanity survives by being right bastards.

[Thanas]

While I'm all for Britain (like Japan) owning up to war crimes it committed in occupied colonial territory...

Something about that argument bothers me. Turn it around- how many other nations would we say are 'inherently evil,' if we assume what they did wrong in one decade makes them evil in other decades? Is there something uniquely British about torturing people? Because I didn't get that memo.

Nowhere did I say it was a uniquely British invention, nor that they were the only ones doing it, and anybody who knows a shred about my posting history should know that I am well aware of the atrocities committed by other colonial powers. For the record: Every colonial empire used torture in some way or form, because torture was commonplace in warfare when it came to using it against the dirty colonials.

I should not have to say that but apparently you are one of those people who is too stupid to remember what people wrote not so long ago.

It sort of strikes a false note with me, though, when someone implies that this is inherent, a "British way" somehow special to Britain.

British way as in "standard". Not as in "they were the only ones using it".

[mr friendly guy]

While I'm all for Britain (like Japan) owning up to war crimes it committed in occupied colonial territory...

Something about that argument bothers me. Turn it around- how many other nations would we say are 'inherently evil,' if we assume what they did wrong in one decade makes them evil in other decades? Is there something uniquely British about torturing people? Because I didn't get that memo.

Lets apply the standard equally. Britain still opposes selling weapons to the PRC for for the events in Tiananmen more than 20 years ago. Even though the man who ordered the army to come in is dead for more than a decade, and the next president of China narrowly avoided being purged for supporting the students etc. Whats good for the geese is good for the gander as the saying goes. If Britain wants to apply that standard then they can suck it down and acknowledge that their colonialism had plenty of negative effects, and pro colonial apologists can stop whining that other nations had the gall to try and eject foreign invaders like the British.

Just for the record, my view is that the modern day countries won't necessarily be like their imperialist past if they behave differently, however if they don't acknowledge it or engage in apolegetics over it, there is something untrustworthy about them.

[K. A. Pital]

Torture has been everyone's way, not "British way". Not just every colonial empire. Everyone.