Angry letters traded between ministers spoke volumes of rift within Cabinet

One of the early agreements by the exiting colonial government and the incoming independent government was that there would be no free land to dish out, a decision that caused fractures between conservatives and radicals.

By July 1963, the matter was brought to Parliament by Yatta MP Gideon Mutiso who asked “indigenous people to be resettled in their own lands” and that settlements schemes be free. How to satisfy landless Kenyans was one of the tests Jomo Kenyatta faced early on as PM.

When this motion was brought, Kenyatta called a meeting at 4.15pm on July 16, 1963. In attendance were Finance minister James Gichuru, Agriculture’s Bruce Mackenzie, Lands and Settlement’s Jackson Angaine and Parliamentary Secretary (assistant minister), Ministry of Finance, Mwai Kibaki.

The talking points were drafted by Lands PS, N.S. Carey-Jones on the government policy. As he sent the note to Angaine he scripted a comment with a ball-pen: “To call up Kanu Parliamentary Group meeting to discipline members.”

The answers to be given to Parliament on the Mutiso motion was that the taking away of land was “now history” and to “try to reverse it would destroy the economy”.

The second point was that settlement schemes were to correct the situation in an orderly way over time without destroying the economy. On land to be given for free, the Cabinet agreed that Parliament should be told that to buy land for transfer to African ownership and settlement, the government had to borrow money and to repay it and that it would be “absurd” for it to borrow money in order to give it away.

It was also agreed that “if the land were given free, the value for all land owned by Africans would be reduced to little or nothing, and no one would be able to borrow on the security of his land and that nobody would lend the government money to lend to settlers for development.

Kenyatta dilemma

Mr Carey-Jones had put another note: “To accept this motion is impossible; to reject it would be embarrassing”. It was a dilemma facing Mr Kenyatta.

“There is no provision whereby the minister can exempt poor settlers from paying for their land. Moreover, the government is required to repay the borrowed money for purchase of land and for this reason no exemptions can be made,” Angaine told the House.

Another question brought to the Senate in August 1963 was on the resettlement of freedom fighters. It was pointed out that the government policy was that “no particular community would be singled out for special consideration with the exception of all those who had been employed on the farm to be settled for four years.

On another front, poor working relations between Lands minister Angaine and his Agriculture counterpart MacKenzie led to the failure of settlement schemes in the decade after independence. The two traded unfriendly letters, though in public they exhibited an all-is-well mien.

The official file that contains correspondence between the two ministers reveals that when Mr Angaine came under pressure from the World Bank over the failing schemes, he decided to pass the buck to Mr MacKenzie. In a letter dated October 26, 1967, the Lands minister intimated that it was the Agriculture ministry which was not giving the required support.

“At the present,” wrote Mr Angaine, “I am under considerable pressure from the (World Bank) and the Commonwealth Development Corporation concerning inadequate staffing on settlements schemes and also the shortage of livestock on schemes.”

For 55 days Mr MacKenzie sat on his reply, and when he did, on December 20, it was a slow-punch political attack on Mr Angaine and his ministry officials.

Situation unattended

“Your letter did not come as a surprise (and) it is disturbing that you have left the staff situation unattended to this critical stage,” he said in the opening salvo.

Kenya had apparently given definite undertakings to the World Bank about staffing levels at the schemes and that grade cattle would be made available to the new settlers to sustain a dairy industry.

By 1967, the government had expected to make available 97,000 dairy cows but there was a shortfall of 33,000 cows.

Mr Angaine said this was a national problem, complicated by the fact that farmers could not get loans from Agricultural Finance Corporation to buy dairy cows because they were not available.

Also the Agriculture Development Corporation had started buying large farms and livestock and those farms became their property and could not be handed to farmers at the settlement schemes.

Mr Angaine was begging for more extension staff from Mr Mackenzie, who replied: “It is all too well and good for you to list down subordinate figures in hundreds as it were to make your point but not only have you not admitted to find a solution but you are knowingly using some professional degree and diploma graduates as settlement officers which I would regard as a serious misallocation of manpower.

“Some months ago your ministry advised that we had to get rid of 30 AAIs then working in settlement on the grounds that you did not require their services. Was this a miscalculation on your part or what has brought about the sudden change?” asked the Agriculture minister.

Mr Angaine passed the letter to his junior, deputy director of Settlements to check the facts. He responded that Mr MacKenzie and his officials “considered Settlements as an emptying ground for indifferent or staff not endeared to them.

“The morale of our Settlement staff depends on their knowing specifically who their boss is. As it is the nature of seconded staff to be nobody’s baby, the situation is aggravated when the director of Settlements and director of Agriculture are hardly ever on the best of terms,” wrote PM Vuyiya, in a confidential letter.

When Mr Angaine decided to hit back it was in a three-page letter dated February 13, 1968, copied to Cabinet colleagues Gichuru (Finance) and Tom Mboya (Economic Planning).

“Your letter is contrary to the cooperative attitude I would have expected,” wrote Mr Angaine. “As for your rumour on the morale of the staff of Settlements, I take it that it is just a rumour in that contrary to your rumour the morale of the staff, if anything, is higher than ever before.”

But the war did not end there and when Lands and Settlement officers went for a World Bank appraisal meeting they decided to create parallel extension services.

Mr MacKenzie decided to now write to Mr Gichuru complaining about his Cabinet colleague.

In the letter dated July 29, 1968, Mr MacKenzie says he was “getting a little concerned” over the developments. “I want to make it absolutely clear that I am not attempting to pick up a quarrel with Settlement, but would merely like to bring to your attention, the tremendous waste we shall be involved in if Settlement Extension Services continue building up and operating parallel to our existing extension services.”

When a copy reached Mr Angaine’s office he scribbled to his PS and director of Settlements: “Please read this letter very carefully and then let us discuss.”

Mr Angaine’s reply was lengthy — six pages: “I am unable to see any good intentions in this letter,” he wrote, “I may mention here that the need for intensive extension coverage is not of my own making.”

Initially it had been expected that after five years, the Settlement areas would be absorbed by the Ministry of Agriculture, a concept that Angaine says was “too optimistic.”

“I am afraid I do not accept that the Minister for Agriculture is not attempting to pick up a quarrel in that his letter is a distortion of facts and I cannot see what other purpose it would serve,” said Mr Angaine in letter dated September 6.