Politicians know the truth
written by Kim G , May 07, 2009

Politicians know all these things, they know the truth about land ownership in that area. However, they take advantage of the ignorance of youth to spark violence. Majority of young people in Kenya don't have any information about what happened in the colonial era and what followed after independence. This gives room for lies and manipulation by devious politicians.

lopsided report
written by patel , May 08, 2009

Another attempt to pass off Kalenjin genuine concerns and smudge the truth. I agree with them though that we are sitting on a time bomb. Unfortunately it will not be defused. Its explosion will.

patel
written by Daniel.Waweru , May 08, 2009

You haven't read it at all, have you?

genuine concerns
written by Kim G , May 09, 2009

The genuine concerns are there. I think any community would be concerned when large numbers of people settle in their area. Its why there's such a huge debate about immigration in Europe. However, the same community cannot forcibly retake land it sold out freely. Like the above report says, many of the settlers in the Rift Valley bought land from indigenous communities such as the Kalenjin and Maasai. The problem you have is brought about by population growth, where the youth start wondering what happened to the land of their ancestors. This is where devious politicians start spewing untruths that lead to violence.

...
written by mkosakabila , May 10, 2009

Another attempt to pass off Kalenjin genuine concerns and smudge the truth.

An important thought, Patel.
Is there anything specific missing from the document (or anything specific in the document)that makes you say so, or is it an overall unspecified feeling?

...
written by patel , May 11, 2009

Daniel.Waweru, its important not to view other peoples views as ignorant. Why couldnt i read the entire report?

To mkosakabila, the missing link is undiluted historical facts and a thorough audit of the settlement trustees fund. Anything short of this is a lie. Views from authentic community elders and not later day wannabe nationalists and camera posers will greatly help and perhaps defuse the time bomb. Do you think an entire community can be horribly wrong?

Patel
written by mkosakabila , May 11, 2009

I dont know what to think, but to the extent that an entire community can support (and execute) the brutal extermination of another community, it leaves little doubt as to how right they might be. Such targeting in an area settled by diverse ethnicities is horrifying at best.

The proposal for a thorough audit of the settlement trustees fund is most helpful. I would further propose that, for a fuller picture, it runs in tandem with a comprehensive recordation of who bought which land from whom, and WHEN, if the objective is to determine who is deserving of being butchered out of the land they so currently occupy under the tenuous classification historical injustices. It would also be worthwhile roping the Maasai into this conversation, seeing that such extensive areas bear their stamp in naming.

I also like the idea of interviewing elders for the purposes of establishing this phenomenon -->"undiluted historical fact."

So anyway, here we have constructive suggestions from Patel re what can be done to enrich and authenticate the CHRDEM report. I hope the CHRDEM are upto this challenge, which I think is well justified. In the end, for this problem to be resolved to any degree, justice has to be seen to be done, from across both sides of the aisle. There is no better start than hearing out diverse opinions and collating from similarly diverse knowledges.

The usefulness of the apocalyptic predictions lies less in their empirical relevance than in their capacity to provoke action, for which reason I will not comment.

it was ever thus
written by trrrrr , May 11, 2009

In the immediate aftermath of the violence, even with the 'human rights' people and the global media lamenting about how the Kikuyu had 'stolen' land in the Rift Valley, William Ruto said very clearly and repeatedly that there was really no honest land issue in the Rift Valley.

Perhaps the question to ask of Patel and others who share her belief is whether they have any evidence than a communities shared belief. I mean loads of people believe in propositions that have not just been proven to be untrue, but ones that are wholly baseless.

patel
written by danielwaweru , May 11, 2009

I assumed you hadn't read the report because, without presenting any counter-evidence, you simply asserted that the authors were lying.

To mkosakabila, the missing link is undiluted historical facts and a thorough audit of the settlement trustees fund. Anything short of this is a lie. Views from authentic community elders and not later day wannabe nationalists and camera posers will greatly help and perhaps defuse the time bomb. Do you think an entire community can be horribly wrong?

The report does, in fact, provide historical facts, and they've examined SFT records for the relevant pieces of land. Unfortunately, they've come to unhelpful conclusions, for your side anyway.

If an entire community can't be wrong -- and assuming that your not-very-well-hidden assumption that all Kalenjin are of one mind on the land issue -- then what's the point of examining history and the SFT records? The truth can be determined by a head-count of the relevant community.

...
written by patel , May 12, 2009

Before titles are transferred, there are always negotiations and mutual sell purchase agreement. Indeed, the cast is complete with a conveyancing lawyer in place. Add to the fact that titles have audit trails that shows the original holder of the title, the subsequent holders and the current holder. Transfers of land since the times of the crown ordinance to current titles have registers and records can be accessed. From here, we can establish those who 'bougth'land from the colonials and those who genuinely bougth land from the indeginous locals. This is one of the ways of sorting out Jomo's high handedness on the land issue. How this issue is getting sexed up on a daily basis and gets muddled when it is very simple is beyond my comprehension.

Incomplete report
written by Mwarangethe , May 18, 2009

As Patel has noted, this report is not complete. In fact, it is a sham. For instance, they say that, the Kapitwet farm was taken by elite. Why not name these elites? What do we gain by being told that, some elites took the land? It is our firm held opinion that, the best way is to name these elites.

There is also mention of Kenyanga case. It is not a mark of intellectual honesty to select cases or opinions that only support your views. For instance, why has this report not looked at the issue of indigenous land from a comparative approach? We have indigenous land issues in New Zealand, Latin America, Australia, Canada and even in the USA. Indigenous land is also now dealt with in international law. We would have been more educated if the authors of this report took time and effort to look at what other countries have done about indigenous land claims. However, it seems to them that, quoting a Kenyan high court judge is sufficient. We disagree.

Incomplete report
written by Mwarangethe , May 18, 2009

As an addition:

(a) how does this convention affect issue of indigenous land in Kenya? Convention (No. 169) concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples
in Independent Countries Adopted on 27 June 1989 by the General Conference of the International Labour
Organisation at its seventy-sixth session entry into force 5 September 1991. Available at: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/62.htm

More so, we would have expected such a report to be prepared by people who have read such books/articles such as:

(a) Indigenous Rights and United Nations Standards, Self Determination, Culture and Land by Alexandra Xanthaki.
(b) Indigenous Peoples in International Law by James Anaya.
(c) Indigenous Peoples' Land Rights Under International Law: From Victims to Actors by Jeremie Gilbert etc

However, instead of proper examination of the issues of indigenous rights/land, the authors of this report are happy to quote for us a Kenyan High Court Judge. We know more than that.

Incomplete report
written by Mwarangethe , May 18, 2009

To be precise, can someone tell us, how do we reconcile Kenyanga case with Article 14 of the above - mentioned convention? Article 14 does provide that:

1. The rights of ownership and possession of the peoples concerned over the lands which they traditionally occupy shall be recognised. In addition, measures shall be taken in appropriate cases to safeguard the right of the peoples concerned to use lands not exclusively occupied by them, but to which they have traditionally had access for their subsistence and traditional activities. Particular attention shall be paid to the situation of nomadic peoples and shifting cultivators in this respect.

2. Governments shall take steps as necessary to identify the lands which the peoples concerned traditionally occupy, and to guarantee effective protection of their rights of ownership and possession.

3. Adequate procedures shall be established within the national legal system to resolve land claims by the peoples concerned.

If the authors of this report were well informed, they would have realised that, it is not the Maasai who wanted their land are stupid, it is the Kenyan leaders and the Kenyan judges. Here we have a judge, who is being quoted by people writing a report as an authority, but, he is ignorant of the developments in indigenous land rights.

Demystifying public perceptions on historical injustices around land
written by Waithaka , May 19, 2009

What happened in Eldoret should never happen again, it was gory at best. Historical injustices will not be solved by taking it out on the innocent, some who were even in wheelchairs. If anyone is to blame, it's the British first, followed by Kenyatta and Moi governments who perpetuated the land grabbing vice. I believe Kalenjins just like other Kenyans genuinely want historical wrongs righted, but the question remains, how are we going to go about it. Killing and maiming innoncent folks is not the way, so is chasing away people who have bought land honestly. The so called attachment to our ancestral land must be discouraged if Kenya is going to be for all Kenyans. If that doesn't happen, no one will stop Kikuyus from kicking out people from other tribes from places like Kangemi and Kabete or the Maasai kicking out non-Maasais from Karen, Ongata Rongai. Kenyans seem and act barbaric whenever land issues are brought up.

Waithaka
written by mkosakabila , May 20, 2009

This (among other things) is precisely what the liberal democratic states CANZAUS (Canada, New Zealand, Australia, the US), countries that had gone the furthest in institutionalizing indigenous rights, had in mind when they paradoxically declined to vote for The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007), which was even already significantly watered down after several decades of negotiation.

Instead of looking to "indigenous" rights, whatever those may be in an African setting (Namibia?)-- more honored in the breach for reasons as above---may well make more sense to do the comparative analysis along the lines of land and violent conflict. While it may be hard to establish a direct pathway from land to violent conflict, there are lots of lessons to be learnt from Africa, Asia and Latin America re possible mitigation strategies.

ugly
written by trrrrr , May 20, 2009

We really oughtn't accept the attainder of all the Gikuyu of the Rift Valley for the sins, most alleged and unproved of their ancestors. It seems to me that in our union as a nation, we surrendered certain (indigenous rights) which is why there are Kalenjin with massive homes and land in Lower Kabete.

We must not of course ignore these claims out of hand, but they must be prosecuted with present and historic realities in mind. There is sufficient scholarship to show the Kalenjin themselves, and even the Maasai, benefited to some degree from the interference brought about by the British and from the post-independence aftermath. There was also great displacement, some of it genocidal, before the British curse landed here. Characterisation of the conflict then in the cowboys vs. Indians frame is unhelpful.

I am not sure what exactly we'll call the difference, but the protections due say the Ogiek, or the Bajuni need to be differentiated from those on offer to larger groups. Would we have the Kikuyu similarly claim indigenous rights to land in the Nairobi area? Look at maps of settlement prior to colonisation, would Kenya be viable if we kept to those confines? There is something repulsive about the patronising attitude taken to the Kalenjin. As their leadership has stated severally, there really is no land issue. Sadly, it persists as a fetish in some circles.

question
written by trrrrr , May 20, 2009

Just after I had written about attainder, I wonder is there anything like the slayer rule in the Kenyan books? Would like to see if we can supply something like it to the moral argument here, considering the lamentations of the bones of the Uasin Gishu, the Ogiek, or even the Kikuyu of Burnt Forest, Molo, etc.

"Leaders" v Experts
written by mwarang'ethe , May 21, 2009

written by trrrrr , May 20, 2009 wrote that:

I am not sure what exactly we'll call the difference, but the protections due say the Ogiek, or the Bajuni need to be differentiated from those on offer to larger groups. Would we have the Kikuyu similarly claim indigenous rights to land in the Nairobi area? Look at maps of settlement prior to colonisation, would Kenya be viable if we kept to those confines? There is something repulsive about the patronising attitude taken to the Kalenjin. As their leadership has stated severally, there really is no land issue. Sadly, it persists as a fetish in some circles.

Our response:

In the article you have referred us to, we have experts saying something different. In our view the experts are more rational than the so called "leaders." Do you really believe what these so called "leaders" tell you? If you do, woe unto you.

come on
written by trrrr , May 21, 2009

Now Mwarang'ethe, how would you explain the fact that even in the heat of the post-election crisis Rift Valley potentate William Ruto for example was making clear that the disturbances had their cause in politics, particularly in a disputed election and not in a land quarrel?

Are you denying that Ruto would gain an even greater following among the Kalenjin if he played the 'our tribe are victims card' employed to resounding success by others such as the Prime Minister? I cannot see how Ruto would lose from such a proclamation, he would after all have the backing of all these 'experts' of yours.

It is not just these 'leaders' who are not pushing the claims you offer here, even organisations such as the Emo Foundation, who were involved in preparing this report, and which is the largest pan-Kalenjin NGO, are not in agreement with you.

Of course, there's many 'experts', perpetual crusaders against the state who will say anything to take the battle to the government. I'd like to suggest this was not their position in the 1990s when Moi was in office, and the air around Molo and Burnt Forest was heavy with the smell of blood. The ethnic clashes in those years did not have this cloak of restitutive righteousness that your company would like to cover this round in.

One pushing your position has to explain the silence of the guns (machetes and arrows) between elections, the fact that several of those pushed out have been sold/ leased land as recently as the year of the elections and that surveys of settlements do not show the extremity of land pressure that would lead to this violence.

Sorry, Ruto over you. I suppose this is why the report is titled Demystifying public perceptions on historical injustices around land. You get?

Final question. What do you and those you sit with want? The Kikuyu to leave the Rift Valley? I would understand a campaign to break up large land holdings, but as you justify attacks on poor peasants, you really must force yourself to answer the question. What exactly is it you want?

response to trrrr
written by mwarang'ethe , May 21, 2009

written by trrrr , May 21, 2009
Now Mwarang'ethe, how would you explain the fact that even in the heat of the post-election crisis Rift Valley potentate William Ruto for example was making clear that the disturbances had their cause in politics, particularly in a disputed election and not in a land quarrel?

Our response:

Let us be brunt. In 1960 -70's cabinet Minister Nyaga Jeremiah (who initially even represented central province in the Legco) warned our people not to buy land in the RV because, (they accepted his advise) as he saw it, there will be violence in the future over the land issue. Nyagah was in the cabinet just like Kenyatta, Koinange et al. How come Nyagah could see this violence while Kenyatta and co. were too blind to see and advise their people? The point is that, this violence was forseen by many people. We would ask you kindly to read Weekly Review Magazine of between 1963 - 1980. You will have a firm historical perspective to this violence. We do not think anyone has captured these issues/history of Kenya at this time better than Hillary Ngw'eno in his Weekly Review of that period.

trrrr , May 21, 2009 wrote that:

Sorry, Ruto over you. I suppose this is why the report is titled Demystifying public perceptions on historical injustices around land.

Our response:

It is disturbing that, you are confusing appearance with substance. The title of this report is about demystifying public perceptions about land issues in the RV. The public perception is that, some communities (should be some elite from some communities) benefitted more than others in land issues in the RV. Now, to demythfy that conception, all you need to do is to give an accurate account of who got what and under what circumstanes. However, instead of this report doing that, it tells of a farm/s (as we noted above) that were acquired by elite. How does telling us that, farm X was acquired by elite amount to demythfying something?

trrrr , May 21, 2009 wrote:

Final question. What do you and those you sit with want? The Kikuyu to leave the Rift Valley? I would understand a campaign to break up large land holdings, but as you justify attacks on poor peasants, you really must force yourself to answer the question. What exactly is it you want?

Our response:

Lets be clear. We do not and have never supported violence, leave alone violence against the poor peasants. The fact is that, these poor peasants are suffering because of the actions or inactions of the few elite from Gema community. All that needs to be done, is to have an open inquiry into land acquistion in the RV after 1963 to around 1980 or thereabout. Since all records are there, let all these transactions be put in public, and when that is done, people will see the truth. It may be that, the view that some elite from Gema grabbed land in the RV is unfounded. However, without an open inquiry into the issue, how do we dispell that nortion? Who is afraid of that??

Nyaga, Minority Report, etc
written by trrrr , May 22, 2009

From your argument, the DN article and Nyagah's position, are we to understand that the problem is the fact of presence of the Gikuyu, and not their ownership of land.
But what use is it our being one country, with a Bill of Rights that guarantees each citizen the right to settlement and property anywhere within our borders if we can have no-go zones for some kind of citizen? Also, if we’re happy to deny our fellow citizens these rights, are we ready to forfeit the unity of purpose that permits the people of unproductive region X to sue the state for assistance, are we ready to declare that each region regardless of its resources be left to its devices? I cannot think of any political collective of any fashion anywhere that has worked quite like that.
This is the inherent contradiction in Majimboism/ regionalism/ ethnic-nationalism, etc in Kenya.
I propose that this country has benefited immensely from these migrations, this mixing and that we can be grateful that there were not more Jeremiah Nyagahs about to preclude it. Some would refer you to scholarship which shows it was not just the Gikuyu migrating, there are several Kisii, Kalenjin, Luhya, Meru and Luo non-natives moving into these parts, relieving resource pressures in their traditional homelands and drastically improving national economic output.
The very fact that these immigrants, and their descendants find, keep finding even after the cleansing efforts, land available for rent or sale, is similarly indicative of a division of labour (however un-PC that sounds). That division of labour guarantees a large fraction of what we present today as the national cake.
I would not contest at all the view that some GEMA elite grabbed land in the Rift Valley, but attacking them as GEMA elite seems to me an obstruction to the creation of a class consciousness that would work towards the resolution of the land issue. It is a dog-whistle tactic that absolves the Kalenjin elite, Luo elite, Kisii elite, the vestiges of the settler population, MNCs, etc and instead focuses attention on the fact of the accused being GEMA. The subsequent shift, from attacking GEMA elite to Kiambaa is short and swift.
I will leave out the Minority Report section, the fact of some being able to foresee criminal conduct on your part, does not diminish the criminality of those acts when committed , or justify them nor does it in any way inculpate me for my innocent actions.
Finally, assuming consensus on the injustice of attainder, and keeping in mind the laws of Kenya, please explain how you can say this in good conscience.

The fact is that, these poor peasants are suffering because of the actions or inactions of the few elite from GEMA community.