Mau Mau take UK to court

13 April 2011 by Richard Walker

On Thursday the British High Court began hearing claims of torture and brutality perpetrated by British staff on Kenyan Mau Mau rebels in the 1950s.

Lawyers said British officials committed grave acts of torture, including castration and severe sexual assault.The case was first brought to court by victims two years ago, when the British government argued that it had no jurisdiction to hear the case. The court disagreed. Now the UK Foreign Office contends there is no case to answer because it has no liability.

The UK government argues, “in passing sovereignty to the Kenyan government in December 1963, it passed on all responsibility for any outstanding legal cases,” according to Oxford University’s David Anderson, who’s been helping prepare the case for the Mau Mau claimants.

This means that the British view is that the Kenyan government is liable and it is up to the Kenyan courts to deal with such cases. The British government argues that in signing the Kenyan declaration of independence in 1963 it extricated itself from any actions that took place under its rule.

“Believe me that is the position they have taken. It seems to me just a completely unethical, immoral and frankly ridiculous stance”, says David Anderson.

Want to read more?

If you subscribe to a free membership, you can read this article and explore our full archive, dating back to 1997.

Subscribe now

Related articles

19 February 2007 by Laetitia Grotti

One year ago on January 6, 2006, the 17 members of Morocco's Equity and Reconciliation Commission (IER) were closing up shop after submitting their final report to King Mohammed VI. The Moroccan truth commission had received a flood of compliments from the international community praising the recommendations in its report, especially those advocating legislative and constitutional reforms. One year later, however, the results have been rather mixed.

11 September 2006 by our correspondent in Arusha

After having tried high-ranking officers, ministers, businessmen, priests, journalists, local officials and militiamen, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) is in uncharted waters. On September 11, the most famous rwandese troubadour of his generation will stand trial for genocide. 

23 October 2006 by Christine Chaumeau

China is keeping a polite distance from international criminal justice. Beijing is hardly disinterested, but China does want to make sure that these new global mechanisms are not going to infringe upon its sovereignty by delving into particularly sensitive cases such as Tibet. 

United Nations Operation in Burundi disarms rebel forces in Mbanda in February 2005 (Photo: Flickr/UN Photo/Martine Perret)
03 June 2015 by Janet H. Anderson, The Hague (The Netherlands)

Over the last month, Burundi has hit the headlines as the president put himself forward to be elected for a controversial third term, resulting in street protests, thousands of refugees who fled instability and an attempted coup. Behind the issues of elections and constitutionalism are also those of justice following Burundi’s long-running civil war. The international community supported an intensive process of negotiation and the signing of the Arusha Accord in 2000. But in the decade and a half since, its provisions on justice have been debated though never fully implemented.

06 November 2006 by Pierre Hazan

France's attitude towards international criminal justice is marked by ambiguity. Paris subscribes to a vision of the world in which international humanitarian law is considered a way to curb violence against civilian populations, but at the same time it is wary of an unchecked judicial system that could end up prosecuting French soldiers engaged in areas where it has old and deep-rooted interests.