Tortured Kenyans win historic ruling in Britain

Three tortured Kenyans who suffered abuses by British forces in the 1950s won the right to take their case to trial. The ruling could pave the way for future cases from Britain's former colonies.

Ben Curtis/AP
Seated left to right, Kenyans Jane Muthoni Mara, Wambuga Wa Nyingi, and Paulo Muoka Nzili, celebrate the announcement of a legal decision in their case at Britain's High Court concerning Mau Mau veterans, at the offices of the Kenya Human Rights Commission in Nairobi, Kenya Friday, Oct. 5.

A historic legal ruling in London today could leave Britain’s government facing dozens of new court cases alleging systematic torture by the officers of its former empire dating back decades.

Three elderly Kenyans who say Britain’s imperial administration beat, raped, or castrated them in the 1950s have won the right to take their allegations to a full trial after a three-year legal battle. The claimants are asking for compensation and a government apology.

The High Court in London today dismissed arguments from Britain’s Foreign Office that a fair trial was impossible because many potential witnesses have already died and because the events in question happened so long ago.

“It’s a seismic ruling, with implications in multiple other former British colonial territories,” says Caroline Elkins, a Harvard University professor and author of “Imperial Reckoning,” a study of Britain’s conduct during its imperial administration in Kenya.

“This case didn’t come out of thin air. There are other colonial theaters – Palestine, Northern Ireland, Malaya, Aden, Cyprus – where a very similar kind of systematic brutality and violence played out,” Ms. Elkins says.

“The High Court has stated that, even 50 years later, governments can be held accountable for their actions. While it does not say that they will be, or what the outcome will be, it opens the door for these other cases to start too,” Elkins says.

In his ruling today, Justice Richard McCombe said there was enough potential evidence in Britain’s imperial archives available to both prosecution and defense to permit legal action to move forward.

“The documentation is voluminous … the governments and military commanders seem to have been meticulous record keepers,” Justice McCombe said when reading the ruling aloud in court.

“I have reached the conclusion … that a fair trial on this part of the case does remain possible and that the evidence on both sides remains significantly cogent for the court to complete its task satisfactorily,” McCombe  said.

Assaulted and detained

The three claimants involved in yesterday’s historic ruling, Paulo Muoka Nzili, Wambuga Wa Nyingi, and Jane Muthoni Mara, all in their 70s and 80s, say they were violently assaulted during their detention by British forces ruling Kenya in the 1950s and 1960s.

They were interned during the Mau Mau rebellion, a revolt by mostly rural Kenyans against their imperial masters that led to thousands of arrests, detentions, and violent assaults on Kenyans. Thousands died.

Britain does not deny that its colonial officers "tortured" or "ill treated" Mr. Nzili, Mr. Wa Nyingi, and Ms. Mara. But all three are asking for an official apology from the British government and compensation for injuries they suffered, which includes lifelong complications that followed their abuse.

Martyn Day, the British lawyer representing the three Kenyans, called the court’s decision today “historic” and said it would “reverberate around the world.”

"There will undoubtedly be victims of colonial torture from Malaya to the Yemen from Cyprus to Palestine who will be reading this judgment with great care,” Mr. Day said.

“The British Government … has been hiding behind technical legal defenses for three years in order to avoid any legal responsibility,” Day said. “Following this judgment we can but hope that our government will at last do the honorable thing and sit down and resolve these claims.”

Room for appeal

Dozens of elderly Kenyans gathered at a Nairobi human rights organization’s office to hear the judgment today, and ululated, clapped, and danced when it was announced.

“I hope … this means that the British government will finally come here to give us something to support our families and to help us,” Wa Nyingi told The Christian Science Monitor after the Justice’s decision. All three victims were present at the human rights organization’s office when the announcement was read. Wa Nyingi finds it hard to understand the delay in issuing an apology and compensation, he says.

“It is wrong that this thing is taking so long.”

But he may have to wait even longer. After the ruling was issued, the British government announced it would appeal the decision.

“It seems that their strategy is to continue to fight this thing on legal technicalities until we die, and then the matter will be closed,” says Gitu wa Kahengeri, the head of the Mau Mau Veterans’ Association.

“We are all old people, if they can delay two or three years, it will be too late.”

A fourth claimant, Ndiku Mutwiwa Mutua, died earlier this year.

South Africa’s Archbishop Desmond Tutu called on Britain to “show some compassion” following the ruling.

“The British Government must now resolve this issue once and for all,” Mr. Tutu said.

“They have admitted these elderly Kenyans were tortured by British officials but have refused to apologize or to show any concern for their welfare. The Courts have now rejected their legal defense twice in two years. It is high time the government stops avoiding responsibility and shows some compassion.”

A spokesman for the British Foreign Office explained the reason for appeal centers around the ruling’s “potentially significant and far reaching legal implications.”

“The normal time limit for bringing a civil action is 3 to 6 years,” the spokesman said.

“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. Since this is an important legal issue, we have taken the decision to appeal.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.