Move Jomo Kenyatta’s statue from KICC to a museum

All over the world, it seems there is the movement to either destroy, or move to less prominent
sites, statues of persons who, while they may have been heroes at home, did damage to others
through, especially, colonialism or the slave trade, or whose attitudes on race were suspect.

Distinguished scholar Boaventura de Sousa Santos says the statues are under attack because
“they represent unaddressed depredations and injustices”.

Several years ago, university students in South Africa agitated for the statue of Cecil Rhodes,
prominent colonialist, who played a key role in bringing British rule to southern Africa, to be
pulled down – which it eventually was.

At Oxford, there is now a strong move to remove the statue of Rhodes. The statue of a slave
trader, who was also a prominent and charitable citizen of Bristol, was toppled into the harbour.
Statues of King Leopold II of Belgium, Christopher Columbus and a leading Minister of the Sun
King, Louis XIV of France, as well as of Winston Churchill in London have had graffiti
scrawled on them or have been the subject of removal campaigns. Gandhi’s statue was pulled
down in Accra where Gandhi has little to do, but on behave of some students from South Africa.

SHOULD JOMO FALL - OR BE RETIRED?

Whenever I see the monumental statue of Jomo Kenyatta at the Kenyatta International
Convention Centre (or even on our currency notes since the statue figures on all our new notes as
the result of an unsatisfactory court decision), I reflect whether we should not destroy it or at
least transfer it to the Nairobi National Museum.

Of course Kenyatta was a Kenyan, not a foreigner imposing colonialism. But the gross
discrimination against particular communities and the extreme favour of others, not uncommon
in Africa during his regime, is in one sense worse.
It can create tensions between communities which is not what is needed when the emphasis
should be on the creation of a nation — for the good of all.

Many Kenyans feel that they have over the years been marginalised by the Kenyatta leadership,
and now it is his son who is using his power of the state and other sources to promote the Kikuyu
and related tribes (more accurately, self-appointed leaders), and dominate others, which leads to
acute discrimination.

The appropriation of the resources of the state as well as huge properties that he somehow
obtained from numerous citizens and indeed the state, started the growth of onerous wealth and
businesses that the Kenyatta family now own and continues to increase, while millions of
Kenyans are starving. This continuity is the reason why we want to forget his policies and
practices.

Kenyans might well recognise the amount of land and other resources that Jomo collected —
they wondered how. Is it not shocking that the statue of someone who obtained hugely from
individuals and communities should be honoured in this way, in the middle of Nairobi?"

The statue is not merely reminding us of the first president of Kenya (which we preserve for
history), but constantly reminds us of the suffering of the people during his regime — and now.
Kenyans may well not want to be reminded of that period by this huge and unavoidable image.
What is even more damaging for most Kenyans is the perpetuation of the Kikuyu as the masters
of all Kenyans.

The statute would be justified if he had really secured freedom for Kenyans from British
colonialism.

THE TRUTH ABOUT KENYATTA IN KENYA'S HISTORY

In his speech on the last Madaraka Day, Uhuru Kenyatta presented the mythical version of his
father’s contribution to independence and the freedom of Kenyans—and the enormous sacrifices
that he made for it. There are a number of scholarly studies, the best being by Charles Hornsby’s
book of 963 pages, significantly devoted to Jomo’s activities and non-role in securing
independence. .

Jomo played no role in achieving independence.

In his long stay in London, he made no progress towards independence, but did significantly
improve his knowledge of social sciences. It is also true that he was imprisoned for several years,
allegedly for fighting for independence, after a retired (British) judge was brought in to decide
that he and a number of Kenyans had been involved in undermining British policies.

The fact is that he was arrested on the basis of wrong assumptions about his fight for
independence. No doubt this was a great colonial injustice, and caused him considerable
suffering — but it helped him get, wrongly, his reputation as a freedom fighter and in due course
ensured him the rank of the most important fighter for freedom. He did little for his fellow
prisoners, who had indeed fought for freedom. He was particularly nasty to Bildad Kaggia, a
Kikuyu who was a socialist, and supported the real fights for freedom—and drove him to
poverty.

Nor did Jomo have any real role in securing freedom— which was mainly secured by pressure of
the international community for independence of all colonies after the Second World War.
Britain had little option but to start the independence process. Jomo was still in detention when
Britain and representatives of all ethnic and racial communities agreed the independence
constitution, except for some formalities — at which stage he attended at the last moment,
having been released, and, on the strength of that reputation his trial had secured him, chaired the
Kenya team. Until then Oginga Odinga had been the effective leader—but deferred to Jomo
when the latter was freed.

On the false basis that he had fought for independence, he became the prime minister but rapidly
changed the constitution from a parliamentary to a presidential system of government, knowing
that as president he would be much more powerful than prime minister, and less accountable.

Soon after he and Oginga Odinga (who had been helping him when he was in difficulty and
ensured that he occupied a key position when he was freed) fell out— because Oginga was a
socialist who cared for the ordinary — poor — Kenyans and Jomo did not. Jomo instead wanted
to make himself and his family rich. This is clear from Oginga Odinga’s, Not Yet Uhuru –
completely misquoted now by Uhuru!

INDEPENDENCE AND KIKUYUNISATION OF KENYA

The changes to the constitution — which had been carefully devised to ensure fairness to all
Kenyan tribes — also meant he acquired most of state power for himself. Not only did it become
a presidential system but he destroyed the regional government system.

He achieved at least two purposes: The establishment of Kikuyu hegemony through dominance
of the state, and enormous looting of state and citizens, by force, whether from the state or the
public (Europeans, Indians and Africans). He had an extraordinarily period as president, indeed
tied in office.

Hornsby provides an excellent account of this force and theft. Very soon it made the Kenyattas
by far the richest family in Kenya —as it has remained to this day. The appetite for money
continues to this day —much easier as the family is essentially in control of the state. The
eminent role for Kikuyus in the state —pervasive to this day — is the basis for the wealth of both
family and tribe. This is not to say that all Kikuyus have shared in this wealth. Many of them are
poor and without a job — their lands having been taken over by the Kikuyu elite.

In his speech on Madaraka Day, Uhuru had, at length, a fantastic story of his father’s
contribution to independence and freedom of Kenyans — and the enormous sacrifices that he
made. But many Africans, rather than Kikuyus alone, made huge sacrifices to fight off the
British, over a long period (and suffered imprisonment and banishment as well) —and got little
recognition for their struggle.

And he portrayed Sessional Paper Number 10 of 1965 (ironically called 'African Socialism and
its Application to Planning in Kenya' when it had nothing socialist about it), as “the vision
document for our young nation and was full of dreams for the future to come. It envisioned a
Kenya with an Africanized economy.” It is remembered by other communities as the charter for
Kikuyu prosperity, and others’ marginalisation, as the Chief Justice implicitly reminded us
recently.

The political and administrative dominance of the Kikuyu achieved so determinedly set a trend.
His successor, Daniel Moi, clearly decided that treading in Jomo’s footsteps meant having his
own people around him and in prominent positions. Later Kikuyu presidents, Kibaki and
especially Kenyatta II, have reverted to the Kikuyu hegemony model. As for the family, its
access to state wealth is obvious (including Uhuru’s negotiations with the Chinese President in
expensive arrangements which seem to have benefited his family—eg trains from Mombasa to
Naivasha!).

Is it, as Boaventura says, time to “leave the statue to the pigeons”?

LOVE AND SADNESS FOR JOMO; PERSONAL NOTE

It makes very sad to present this account of his role as president. He and my father were close
friends. My father had a grocery shop in Ruiru and Jomo’s house was in Gatundu, 25 miles
away. Jomo came to shop — but he and my father became good friends. He would bring some
fruit for me (from his garden).

While our fathers chatted, his daughter, Margaret, and I would sit in his car with a chocolate bar
for her from the father. When Jomo was in prison, I was at Oxford to study law. When I
returned, it was soon after he was released from prison. Huge crowds queued to welcome him —
and my father thought we should wait until when the queue would lessen. But soon Jomo rang
my father that he had heard I was back — and asked why we didn't go see him.

My father explained the delay but Jomo said we had to go following day. We went and some of
his staff immediately took us straight to him! It was wonderful. We were photographed with him
— I still have the photo!

So it made me sad when I noticed that when he became president he quickly adopted the policies
he adopted—not the kind and caring person that I knew.