Nandi claims over Kisumu dangerous and untenable

The current Nandi boundary and land claims in Muhoroni, Songhor, Chemelil, Kibigori, Kibos and Miwani in Kisumu County on the basis of the belief of their settlement in these areas before the British conquest of Kenya in 1895 are preposterous, dangerous and untenable. This is, first, because pre-colonial ethnic boundaries in pre-British Kenya were always in flux: they kept on changing depending on neighbouring people’s resource-use needs, their ability to deploy military might to conquer others, and their readiness to absorb each other through cultural interpenetration by way of trade and intermarriage. For instance, the Nandi themselves conquered and absorbed many Ogiek, Sirikwa and Maasai communities who preceded them in present-day Nandi and Uasin Gishu counties. They appropriated their lands. Should the surviving descendants of these communities demand the restoration of pre-colonial boundaries and their lands?

COMMON WORDS

Consider the following: The Luo, the Gusii, the Luhya, the Nandi and the Kipsigis similarly interacted for a long time. The Kipsigis are actually an outcome of the Ogiek, Sirikwa, Maasai and the Gusii. Should the Gusii now claim their pre-colonial residences in places like Bomet, Sotik and Kabianga? The Luo-Gusii-Luhya-Kalenjin interactions led to the proliferation of many practices referred to by common words such as Kisumo, Okusuma, Khusuma and Kisumet for reciprocal food requests during times of famine; chiro, echiro and siret for market trade; Nyasaye and Were for God; etc. In religion, few Luo were possessed by juog Lango, the spirit of the Kalenjin, which was so stubborn and difficult to appease that Kalenjin doctors were invited to perform healing rites. Some sub-clans in Nyakach descended from the Kalenjin. Should we sacrifice the entire rich economic and cultural heritage at the altar of land claims such as the Nandi are making today?

UNRESOLVED CONTRADICTIONS

Secondly, the Nandi boundary land claims are quite dangerous. They portend widespread conflict in the country. The claims are coming at a time of post-election healing. Once the Nandi are done with the Luo, they are likely to turn west to the Tiriki and other Luhya, Luo and Kikuyu communities in Kipkaren and in Trans Nzoia. What will consequently happen to the Nandi diaspora, for instance, in the Mount Elgon area and other places in the country? All this is likely to trigger many other latent boundary and land conflicts in the country, which may tear Kenya apart.

Finally, the Nandi land claims are untenable because they will not be legally sustained by available evidence. The British colonial state belatedly made a futile attempt to resolve the Nandi, Luo and other communities’ land and boundary grievances by establishing the Morris Carter Land Commission of 1932-34. The Commission travelled throughout Kenya receiving memoranda and oral submissions from indigenous Kenyan communities, European and Asian settlers, European Missionaries and Anthropologists colonial administrators. Though quite informative, the evidence collected by the Commission shows many unresolved contradictions.

CONFLICTING EVIDENCE

For example, with regard to the Nandi-Luo boundary, an extract from a letter by the Provincial Commissioner Nyanza, John Ainsworth, to the Acting Commissioner of Lands in Nairobi dated November 4, 1909 stated that the Nandi never possessed any rights to land below the Nandi Escarpment except access to some salt lick there. But according to the anthropologist GWB Huntingford, when British rule was imposed on the Nandi in 1896, the Nandi occupied all the area from Tinderet to the large part of the Kano plain below the escarpment. On their part the Luo, in their submissions to the Commission, stated that all the land below the escarpment wholly belonged to them and that at the time Kitoto, a Luoised Mogusii and Owili, were their renowned leaders in the area. On the other hand, the Nandi stated that in the late 19th century they had pushed the Luo close to where the railway line to Kisumu was constructed in 1901. What are we to make of these pieces of conflicting evidence?

COLONIAL BOUNDARIES

The Carter Commission Report did not alter the colonial government’s boundary between Nyanza and Nandi which it set at the escarpment. It also justified European and Indian settlement in the area. All the other post-colonial land-related commissions have maintained the status quo. The Report of the 1962 Regional Boundaries Commission did not alter anything. After independence the area became a settlement scheme where many Kenyans purchased land. The colonial boundaries persist to the present. The sugar factories became statutory corporations employing the Luo as well as the Nandi and many other individuals from all over Kenya as company chairmen and workers.

CREATE EMPLOYMENT

My conclusion is that even when the Nandi claims get to the courts or the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission, they will take very long to resolve. Further, the Nandi will spend millions of shillings to pay lawyers to sift through all the contradictory evidence of the Carter and the post-independence Land Commissions. In the end neither the IEBC nor the courts will want to alter the boundaries for lack of incontrovertible evidence and because of their respect for the status quo or the fait accompli. My suggestion is that instead of instigating another round of inter-ethnic violence through the land claims, the Nandi County leaders should invite their Kisumu County counterparts to jointly mobilise resources to revive the ailing sugar industries in the contested areas. This will generate immense income for the sugar companies and the outgrower farmers as well as create jobs for the hundreds of thousands of unemployed youths in Kenya.

Prof Ndege teaches history at Moi University. Email: [email protected]