Mobility, Confinement and the Politics of Exile: A Study of Manyani Detention Camp in Kenya, 1952-1963: A Historical Account

Abstract

This paper examines the History of Manyani Detention Camp from 1952 to 1963. From 1952 onwards, the British government established detention camps where suspected Mau Mau fighters and their sympathizers were incarcerated. Manyani was started as a holding camp for "hard core" Mau Mau fighters. Manyani held Mau Mau fighters from 1952 to 1963. The colonial government preferred Manyani detention camp because of its harsh environment that was expected to exert maximum physical torture on the detainees so that they could plead guilty and assist in ending the Mau Mau uprising. The paper shows Manyani detention camps as an institution of political domination and control during the state Emergency in Kenya. The paper is a contribution to the historiography of prisons in Kenya.

Full text

Available online: http://scholarsmepub.com/ 1184
Saudi Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences (SJHSS) ISSN 2415-6256 (Print)
Scholars Middle East Publishers ISSN 2415-6248 (Online)
Dubai, United Arab Emirates
Website: http://scholarsmepub.com/
Mobility, Confinement and the Politics of Exile: A Study of Manyani Detention
Camp in Kenya, 1952 - 1963: A Historical Account
John Ndungu Kungu*
Lecturer of History, Department of Social Studies Maasai Mara University, Kenya
*Corresponding author
John Ndungu Kungu
Article History
Received: 03.10.2018
Accepted: 10.10.2018
Published: 30.10.2018
DOI:
10.21276/sjhss.2018.3.10.6
Abstract: This paper examines the History of Manyani Detention Camp from 1952 to
1963. From 1952 onwards, the British government established detention camps where
suspected Mau Mau fighters and their sympathizers were incarcerated. Manyani was
started as a holding camp for “hard core” Mau Mau fighters. Manyani held Mau Mau
fighters from 1952 to 1963. The colonial government preferred Manyani detention
camp because of its harsh environment that was expected to exert maximum physical
torture on the detainees so that they could plead guilty and assist in ending the Mau
Mau uprising. The paper shows Manyani detention camps as an institution of political
domination and control during the state Emergency in Kenya. The paper is a
contribution to the historiography of prisons in Kenya.
Keywords: Manyani Detainee, Detention, Torture.
INTRODUCTION
The need to illuminate and contextualize approaches used by the colonial
government during the state of emergency in Kenya to control, maintain law and order
and to suppress Mau Mau activities has become increasingly necessary. From 1952
onwards, the British government established detention camps where suspected Mau
Mau fighters and their sympathizers were incarcerated. Others were detained in
restricted villages which were used as forced labour camps under harsh and atrocious
conditions.
State of Emergency was the bloodiest period in
the history of Kenya because the colonial government
was determined to reassert its authority which the Mau
Mau rebels had seriously challenged. The Mau Mau had
dominated Central Province and showed no signs of
abating; security was deteriorating in spite of the
infusion of more police into the area.
Manyani: The Ideal Containment Location
Manyani was very ideal as it was located away
from the hot bed of political agitation in Central
Province. Manyani was situated in a remote low lying,
semi-arid area which is sparsely populated, hot, malaria
laden; it was indeed an isolated region far from the rest
of the colony and located in a remote and inhospitable
area. Joram Wamweya notes that, after entering the
compound they were counted. All of them had red
heads from the red dust flying about in the wind. They
were ordered to take out their shoes. This in itself was a
punishment. They baked in the hot sand of Manyani due
to high temperatures perishable foods got stale.
Manyani lies on 1000 hectares of land within
Tsavo West National Park. It is surrounded by the
Manga Hills. It was constructed hurriedly during the
State of Emergency in the semi-arid region to detain the
Mau Mau. Water shortage in Manyani was a form of
oppression of the Mau Mau rebels. Peter Gachuru
Mwangi gave his experience:
The water we received at Manyani was little
and always hot. The whole place was just
boiling-the dust and the sun were unbearable.
You couldn’t cool yourself down by drinking
hot water, so we would spend a very long time
passing it between two tins. These were the
same tins we were issued with and we ate our
porridge and drank our water out of them and
used them to dig ballast on the work project
[
1
].
The area is rife with lions whose notoriety as
“man eaters of Tsavo” dates back to the 1890s [
2
]. The
term “Manyani” is derived from the many
monkeys/baboons found at Tsavo. Like most of the
camps in Kenya in the pipeline, Manyani was
surrounded by barbed wire and watchtowers and
patrolled throughout by armed guards with police dogs.
Pipeline was a system of detention and rehabilitation,
denoting a Mau Mau adherent’s progression from initial
detention through evermore benevolent rehabilitation
activities to ultimate release [
3
]. The process would
begin at the transit camps where teams of Europeans
and Africans would screen, and classify each Mau Mau

John Ndungu Kungu., Saudi J. Humanities Soc. Sci., Vol-3, Iss-10 (Oct, 2018): 1184-1192
Available online: http://scholarsmepub.com/sjhss/ 1185
suspect. The man eaters of the Tsavo offered enough
security to the prison. The colonial government had
placed an electric fence around the prison to deter the
Mau Mau fighters from escaping.
Manyani was placed in a semi-permanent
establishment organized in those camps and far more
suitable for its purpose than Mackinom Road. This was
worsened by the colonial idea of closing Mackinon road
Detention camp and transferring the detainees from
there to Manyani. Manyani was constructed within the
Tsavo National Park close to the Mombasa Nairobi
highway. It was also served with an airstrip and was
close to the railway line running between Mombasa and
Nairobi. It was to accommodate those arrested during
the State of Emergency. These factors facilitated easy
transportation of the Mau Mau who had been arrested in
Central Kenya and the rest of the Rift Valley [
4
].
Manyani Architectural Design
Manyani architectural designs reveal the
colonial mentality of domination and control of the
Africans inmates. It was constructed using corrugated
mud and wattle and recycled canvas. Manyani had two
compounds Manyani A and Manyani B. Manyani A
was divided into four compounds all of which held Mau
Mau detainees; some still stand today. Each compound
had its own camp commandant. The whole camp was
under the command of the Senior Camp Commandant.
Compound 1 and 2 of Manyani A houses prisoners with
long and short sentences. Compound 3 had rounded
huts. These huts were constructed with iron sheets it
was a furnace during the day and very cold during the
night and did not have sanitary facilities.
The structures were built with the idea of
punishment in mind. Manyani experiences very high
temperatures during the day and very cold at night. Mau
Mau would bake in the cells during the day and freeze
in cold during the night. During the emergency each
cell held twenty Mau Mau rebels. This posed health
hazards to the Mau Mau detainees. The conical cells are
numbered 1 to 17. Cell number 17 is still in its original
design it has not been modified. Compound 4 of
Manyani A houses the trustee prisoners. These are
prisoners’ life and condemned prisoners who have
reformed their behaviour. They can be entrusted with
other prisoners. Trustee prisoners enjoy certain
privileges. They have blue uniforms; they sleep on the
bed and eat a special diet. They have mosquito nets and
are served by other prisoners.
Joseph Langat and Umasi Mohamed affirmed
Compound B in Manyani was the most
notorious block during the colonial period. This
compound was used to detain hardcore Mau Mau
fighters who would not denounce the oath. The cells
were separated by a corridor so that detainees could not
communicate. This compound offered solitary
confinement for detainees had small ventilation where
the prison officer on duty would peep. The officer was
armed with a gun for 24 hours in case the detainees
became undisciplined. There was an extension with a
translucent iron sheet where the detainee was supposed
to sun bathe for thirty minutes in the morning and
evening. Political detainees were put under Solitary
confinement, which the worst form of punishment.
Compound B had a watchtower with a prison officer for
twenty-four hours to monitor anything that went on.
There were two metallic gates for fastening the security.
The colonial government’s attitude towards the
Africans was in its self-indiscriminate and humiliating.
Even though the African officers worked for interest of
the colonial masters, their housing was not the same as
their European counterparts. The African frame houses
were made of iron sheets and since Manyani is very hot,
they baked in the houses. Their European counterparts
lived in wooden houses, which were well furnished by
the colonial government [
5
].
Manyani Prison structures were very punitive.
They inserted intense pain and degradation. They were
meant to increase physical suffering and humiliation of
the detainees. The compound was overcrowded with
conical iron sheet cells. The iron sheets intensified the
detainees suffering. The iron cells did not have
ventilation which reduced air circulation. Air borne
diseases such as tuberculosis spread fast due to
congestion and chronic asthma due to dust. Sanitation
was pathetic; detainees used toilet buckets to relieve
themselves. One cell held one hundred detainees. The
other cells were within cells with wide corridors to
break all communication channels.
A huge trench filled with wooden spikes
surrounded the camp, the high walls were raised with
barbed wire, and a watchtower soared above the rest of
the structures. The overcrowded conditions weakened
the immune system of the detainees. The living and
working conditions of security officers at Manyani were
discriminate. African warders lived in “A” flame
houses. They were made up of iron sheets which
increased the temperatures during the day and lowered
them very much during the night. The “A” flame houses
had one entrance and no ventilation. They were low
lying and reduced free movement of air subjecting the
African warders to a lot of heat and dust that
consequently led to diseases. White colonial warders
lived in wooden houses that were well ventilated, raised
with stilt which protected them from vermin, facilitated
air circulation and reduced heat.
It acted as a stopover for Mau Mau being
transported from Nairobi and other parts of the country.
Some were destined for detention camps such as Hola,
Kipini and Mackinon Road.
6
It was preferred for the
hard cores unrepentant Mau Mau. The colonial
government erected Manyani in an area that delinked

John Ndungu Kungu., Saudi J. Humanities Soc. Sci., Vol-3, Iss-10 (Oct, 2018): 1184-1192
Available online: http://scholarsmepub.com/sjhss/ 1186
Mau Mau with their sympathizers consequently
weakening the rebellion. This clearly reveals the
draconian move of the colonial government in
destroying the group. It was made at the onset of the
state of emergency so as to confine the so called
“terrorists”. Manyani detention camp was built during
the State of Emergency to hold the dramatic influx of
new detainees. Baring asked London for approval of the
expansion and the regulation that would allow prisoners
to undertake heavy labour [
7
].
Manyani detention camp ended up to be very
notorious because of its condition. This was supported
by the fact that the majority of those incarcerated under
the Emergency powers were never formally convicted
in a court of law. They were detained because of
suspicion of being members or supporters of the Mau
Mau movements. By the end of 1954, there were over
twenty four thousands Mau Mau suspect in Manyani
camp alone [
8
].
Long Road to Manyani
The pipeline drained into Manyani. The
journey of detainees from various parts of the country to
detention at Manyani was long and tiresome. The
journey from Nairobi took two days, with little or no
food and seldom any sanitation concerns for the
detainees. Detainees were shackled and loaded onto
railcars while others were loaded into Lorries for their
journey to Manyani. Bouncing along the unpaired roads
the detainees, many of whom had broken limbs and
open wounds, were enveloped by choking dust for the
two days they were on the road to Manyani. There was
a massive increase in the number of detainees held at
the beginning of the 1953 in Manyani. New inmates
were brought in daily by lorryload, busload and via
railroad and freight cars. Thousands of detainees were
from settler’s farms in the Rift Valley Province and
Kikuyu reserves. They were loaded into an enclosed bus
for the overnight trip to Manyani. Some were
transferred from Langata in an enclosed railcar that was
stifling for lack of fresh air on account of overcrowding.
The Johnnies on the train passed through the detainees
stepping on their heads, hands and testicles. They
confiscated all valuables the detainees had. Hiti Njoroge
was arrested in Kitale where he had participated in an
oath taking exercise. He recounted:
I was arrested by the colonial police
accompanied by Home Guards. They
interrogated me and took me into an enclosed
barbed place. The colonial officials were with
two police men armed with rifles. They tied
me with a rope around my neck and the other
end around Muriuki wa Mbatia’s neck. They
said “if you don’t answer our question you will
die. Before being interrogated, I was beaten
and the noose tightened. Terror filled the
whole area. In fear of my life, I told them I
had neither participated in Mau Mau activities
nor taken the oath. We were beaten on our
heads with open palms and butts of their
riffles. That evening, a hundred of us were put
in Lorries. We ate nothing for the entire
journey. The first stopover was Nakuru where
we were givenuji. We spent the whole day in
Nakuru under heavy guard. At Nakuru
suspects from other areas joined us. Around 6
p.m. we were weak and in pain, we were
transferred to the trains. We arrived at the
Manyani reception centre the following
morning at around 7 am. On arrival, we were
set at the tone of the rest of the detainees’
experience. I was filled with uncertainty and
fear [
9
].
Muchichu wa Mwaura had been transferred from
Langata detention camp by train. One horrific encounter
he remembered was when the Johnnies in the train
passed through them “stepping on their heads, hands,
testicles and everywhere they felt like. He remembered
his expensive pair of shoes he had bought in Nairobi
was taken from him by one of the Johnnies.” As the
Emergency period progressed, it became clear the
Governor, as the only colonial official authorized to
issue detention orders, would not cope with the
increasing number of Mau Mau while controlling the
escalating confusion in the reserves. By the end of
1954, the colonial government established that the
detainee population had raisen to over 52000, an
addition of 2500 per cent from the beginning of the year
[
10
]. Thus, he decided to delegate the powers to
members of his administration. This meant that the
Provincial Administration could now issue detention
orders to any African suspected of being Mau Mau or
their sympathizers or any other person wanted out of
their areas [
11
]. The increase in the number of detainees
did not only include the Mau Mau held without trials in
the camps but also those convicted of Mau Mau related
crimes. These crimes were either taking oath or
supplying the fighters in the forest with food and arms
and networking. All these culprits were taken to
detentions. The colonial prosecutors almost wholly
abandoned legal procedures. The detainees were not
allowed legal representation; if they did, they were
prohibited from mounting any reasonable defence. This
shows that the courts were simply colonial tools of
oppression that abused the legal process. This is
captured in Hiti Njoroge’s assertion:
I was arrested in Kitale and detained in Manyani
detention Camp. We were never allowed legal
representation in court. They only brought up
trumped up charges without prosecution
witnesses because all of us were viewed as
magaidi (terrorists). There was little the Asian
lawyers could do to help us. We were
sentenced to prison sometimes for a life time and

John Ndungu Kungu., Saudi J. Humanities Soc. Sci., Vol-3, Iss-10 (Oct, 2018): 1184-1192
Available online: http://scholarsmepub.com/sjhss/ 1187
hard labour -through an abuse of the legal
system [
12
].
Through Charles Shutter’s affidavit, it is evident
that detainees arrived at Manyani stations in leg chains
[
13
]. He says that if detainees did not promptly jump off
the high rail cars fast enough it was common practice
for an officer or a warder to pull sharply at the leg
chains which caused men to fall against the steel steps
of the tracks or to the ground and often injuring
themselves badly.
Torture and Conditions of Mau Mau detainees in
Manyani
Manyani detention camp played a significant
role in accommodating Mau Mau fighters. This was
prompted by the closure of Langata detention camp on
15 April 1955. Detainees were directly ferried to
Manyani. After its closure, the Ministry of Defence
focussed their attention on Manyani. There was special
transport that was set aside to ferry Mau Mau from
other parts of the country to Manyani detention camp.
The train would move from Sagana to Manyani via
Nairobi. All the Mau Mau fighters arrested in Central
Kenya region were herded together at Sagana for
Manyani. The special train ran weekly [
14
].
After the closing of Langata, the Ministry of
defence was no larger responsible for co-coordinating
the movement of repatriates from other districts in the
colony, including Nairobi to their home district in
Central Province. This responsibility was delegated to
District Commissioners who were to exercise their
power under the emergency powers of 1953. In 1956
there were 12152 Detainees at Manyani Detention
Camp [
15
]. Reception at Manyani was thrilling. On
arrival, detainees were received by prison officers
arranged in rows. They were forced to pass between
them in a single file. By then they had nothing except
the clothes they were in. The prison officers on either
side beat them with batons as they passed by which
made them run faster. From there they were forced into
a dipping tank full of disinfectants [
16
].
Muchichu wa Mwaura a former detainee gives his
experiences in this notorious prison:
On arrival at Manyani, we were ordered to
crouch in five lines with our hands on our
heads. We were counted like sheep and then
strip –searched during which time all our
money and valuables were confiscated. The
search was a humiliating and dehumanizing
exercise with the officers prying into all our
body orifices. We were ordered to hand over
our valuables voluntarily. If you said you did
not have, the white officers ordered the askaris
to frisk you. We were searched inside our
boots, our mouth and anuses. From there, we
were coerced through a cattle dip of
disinfectants while the askaris pushed our
heads under the solution. After undergoing this
dehumanizing process, we were again
assembled into a large open area and ordered
to strip and place our clothes in a collective
pile. We were given a light shirt and a pair of
yellow shorts and two blankets and these was
our entire wardrobe [
17
].
There were hundreds of askaris and dozens of
white officers shouting pigapiga (beat them; keep
beating them). It was a rough and hard time for the
detainees. The colonial officers ordered all their clothes
and belongings put in pile and burnt in their full view.
They stayed in Manyani for over two years which was
typical for most of the detainees. The screening teams at
Manyani were made up of Europeans and Africans [
18
].
They were from the Prison Department, Special Branch,
CID, the Community Development and Rehabilitation
Department, as well as dozens of Kikuyu loyalists.
They classified the detainee using the “White-grey-
black system”. At Manyani interrogation was more
thorough and aimed at identifying Mau Mau suspect.
They were left at Manyani or taken to Hola detention
camp.
Arguably, Manyani detention camp was a
traumatizing environment of strict control and violence.
Mau Mau movement was viewed by the British as
barbaric, backward and savage. The Mau Mau
description spilled over into the Kenyan and British
press, where sensationist accounts juxtaposed white
heroism with African, or Mau Mau terrorism and
savagery and was seen as “bestial” and “filthy”-an evil
movement that was extremely vile. The colonial
government had to go to any extraordinary lengths to
get rid of the Mau Mau. The conditions were
dehumanizing as Jacob Maina Gakungu one of the
victims affirmed:
My experience at Manyani was the worst in
life. We were beaten, whipped, others sodomized,
beards set on fire, and forced to eat faeces and even
drink urine. This was the price we paid for wiyathi –
freedom. All these atrocities were because we refused to
denounce the oath. During the screening, I was made to
bend over the screening surface my hands on my head. I
had lost sensation in my legs because of the beatings
with a rubber hose. I was felt very feeble. They
demanded that I tell them about the Mau Mau activities
in my home area of Kinangop. The colonial officer
ordered the African Askari to take scorpions which
were everywhere in the camp and force them in my
anus. I was shivering in pain. I began telling them
everything but I was only making stories. I gave false
names of people. The oath I had taken compelled me
not to be a traitor of the rest of our people in the forest.
We had made a decision to die rather than leave our
land to the Mzungu [
19
].

John Ndungu Kungu., Saudi J. Humanities Soc. Sci., Vol-3, Iss-10 (Oct, 2018): 1184-1192
Available online: http://scholarsmepub.com/sjhss/ 1188
The state of Emergency was unavoidable [
20
].
There were underground illegal activities amongst the
Mau Mau fighters. One activity that frightened the
Colonial government was the oathing which they
deemed a crime. The colonial administration believed
that the fighters who took the oath to fight had in part
submitted to a form of occultism. “Oaths were seen by
the British as a primitive way of capturing the mind and
making the person unreasonable. The only way you
could get rid of the oath was to convert the person back
to sanity through torture and detention.” Therefore, Mau
Mau arrests and detention were believed to a means of
restoring sanity through torture and punishment. The
Mau Mau rebels spread throughout the colony. Men
were rounded up and locked up in detention camps
which were colonial torture chambers.
Peter Karanja Wagatha recounts
The screening team at Manyani devoted hours
in a day on a single suspect before giving him
individual detention orders. One month after
the famous kifagio-Operation Anvil in Nairobi
only ten percent of Mau Mau suspects at
Manyani had been screened and classified.
Screening would take one year before the
screening teams finished with those who had
been picked during the sweep. There were
minimal movements in the camps and this led
to congestion leading to unhealthy conditions.
Within a month, there was serious typhoid
fever outbreak in Manyani camp. We used
buckets as our toilets which were placed in the
same place we lodged. We were forced every
morning to carry the buckets everything
morning on our heads for disposal. Camp
officials refused to allow us dispose our human
waste outside the detention wires. The quality
and quantity of the camp water was not of the
required standard for human consumption. The
buckets were filled to the brim with urine and
faeces [
21
].
Letters retrieved from National Archives
Nairobi document show detainees were tortured by way
of castration and ear perforations. This was done so as
to make them confess to the alleged crimes. Although
they did lodge complains to the prison authorities, their
complains were not addressed [
22
]. Despite constant
complaints from detainees on torture, shortage of water
and breakage of the water pump supply the colonial
government gave priority to the welfare of prison staff
such as the construction of an officer’s mess instead of
addressing detainee complaints [
23
]. In one letter a
detainee in the holding camp at Manyani related some
of the methods employed by the camp command and by
the colonial authorities to torture.
Warders, camp commandants, officer in-
charge, rehabilitation teams and screening teams, beat
detainees. Among the weapons of choice were
“permabox bundles and rifle buts”, rhino whips, butons
and chains. Detainees were sexually abused―whether
through sodomy with foreign objects, animals and
insects, cavity searches, the imposition of a filthy toilet-
bucket system or forced penetrative sex. Camp
cleanliness was very poor since detainees used same
buckets for lavatory use and for bathing uses. The
problem of hygiene, diseases and the lack of medical
treatment was foremost in many detainees’ letters.
Many suffered diarrhoea, dysentery and typhoid.
Bewes press conference resulted from Baring
refusal to take concrete action. The Canon went public
because no one in the British colonial government
would listen to him. From the start of emergency, the
colonial government had made a concerted effort to
manage information coming out of Kenya and specially
to minimize the impacts of any statements or accounts
of torture. The colonial governments’ response of
obstruction and obfuscation was obvious.
24
Anti-
colonial critics in Britain intensified their criticism of
the Emergency Regulations. Opposition labour MPs
particularly Barbara Castle and Fenner Bruckway were
vocal in their criticism. Barbara Castle spearheaded
opposition outrage over the British government policies
in Kenya particularly detention without trial [
25
].
It is because of these atrocities that, Victor
Charles Shutter, the Principal Officer in-charge of Her
Majesty’s Prison Service in 1955, was contracted by the
colonial government in Kenya to assist in the
rehabilitation of Mau Mau detainees into normal life. In
November 1955 he was flown to Kenya and sent to
Manyani Detention camp. His report on the Mau Mau
Detention camps in Kenya exposed the poor conditions
of Manyani detention camp. The prison had about
20,000 detainees. The officers in charge of the detainees
were: 58 Europeans officers, and about 3,500 African
warders, six European special branch police officers
and a riot squad of 200 Africans commanded by a
European officer [
26
].
During his stay at Manyani prison Shutter
observed inhuman treatment of detainees by warders.
On one occasion, he struck an African chief warder
whom he found stepping on the heads of detainees and
pushing them into the dipping tank. After this incident
the warder was summoned by the Deputy Camp
Commandant and warned that such actions were not to
be tolerated at the detention facility [
27
]. The brutality
terrified detainees of the power of prison officers. As
such, prisoners easily panicked on threats leading to
stampede that gave impression of disorderliness. This
situation was exploited by some officers to foment
temporary disorder which could then be quelled by the
dreaded riot squad. Shutter also witnessed an occasion
at Manyani where Watson, who was a security officer,
entered compound C and struck detainees with a big

John Ndungu Kungu., Saudi J. Humanities Soc. Sci., Vol-3, Iss-10 (Oct, 2018): 1184-1192
Available online: http://scholarsmepub.com/sjhss/ 1189
stick. He chased all the detainees until they reached the
barbed wire perimeter from where they could not
proceed, so they turned on him. Watson then escaped
behind the barbed followed by a hail of stones hurled by
the said detainees who by this time were in panic.
Subsequently, all the inmates of the said compound
were set upon by the riot squad and severely beaten
irrespective of whether they had taken part in throwing
stones or not.
Three months latter Shutter called the camp
staff together and accused some of the officers of being
lenient with detainees. He advised for firmer action.
The officers protested at his accusation which he
ignored [
28
]. It was normal at Manyani for the detainees
to be compelled made to squat outside their huts. Those
in charge of the hut were given a public beating because
of some fault or misconduct. Detainees were forced to
work under pathetic situations under supervision.
Detainees were paid eight shillings as a pay [
29
].
Mwangi wa Maina narrated:
We were forced to carry ballast on a perforated
metal container on our heads. This was very
traumatizing. We were prepared to do every
work that was given to us by the prison
authorities. Those who refused to work were
forcefully mercilessly beaten by the officers
concerned. We were beaten whenever we were
taken before the officer in orderly rooms or
while in cells. If one was prescribed six strokes
of the cane as punishment he would get ten
strokes instead. The officer in charge would
order his askaris (Wardens) to beat the same
person in his (officer) presence. The doctor did
not certify as to whether the victim to be
beaten was medically fit the strokes [
30
].
In August 1957, it was decided to break up the
group of detainees in Manyani and reorganize the
compounds. Manyani at this time of reorganization
contained those deemed to be dangerous. On 17 August
1957, the warders and colonial police got into the
compound to carry out the exercise, the detainers
refused to cooperate.The camp riot squad in full riot
gear was sent at around 6 pm to enter the compound to
quell the disturbances by the detainees who were armed
with pieces of timber, iron bars made from the
straightened-out handles of latrine buckets and hard
rocks/stones. The confrontation was tough that the riot
squad was forced to pull back from the compound. It
was only after five days, on 22 August, that the prison
authorities regained control of the camp. Eleven
detainees were subsequently charged with murder and
taken to Mombasa before the Emergency Assize Court.
The accused detainees refused to be cross examined by
the court claiming they could not understand the
interpreter. Nevertheless, they were all found guilty and
sentenced to hang.
Detainees were incarcerated without trial under
Governor’s Detention Orders [
31
]. The increasing
detainee population reflected the Crowns inability to
prosecute cases effectively against Mau Mau suspects
hence the use of Governor Detention Orders. The
colonial government could not a mass enough evidence
to convict the vast majority of Mau Mau adherents.
Mechanism of justice hit the wall. The courts enforced
swift rather than impartial justice. There was scant
evidence for conviction. For example, it was the court
tell a Mau Mau spy and how could the court prove a
Mau Mau sympathizer?.Lack of evidence meant
permanent detention without trial.The detainees were
purported of other crimes, including armed robberies
[
32
].
Diseases at Manyani Detention Camp
The pathetic conditions of the camp due to
congestion contributed to the spread of contagious,
waterborne and air diseases. The disease broke out was
in May 1954. By September, it was clear that the spread
of typhoid in Manyani had reached epidemic
proportions [
33
]. The epidemic swept through Manyani
camp. The spread of infectious disease there and
elsewhere in the pipeline came as a surprise to the
colony’s chief medical officer Colonel W.G.S Foster.
He had written a lengthy memorandum to Baring and
the Colonial Secretary detailing the poor sanitary
conditions in the Manyani and Mackinion Road camps.
He had pointed out security and expediency had been
given priority over health standards. Camp officials
refused to allow detainees to dispose properly of human
and other waste outside of the detention and the quality
and quantity of the camps water supplies were below
the acceptable standards [
34
]. Manyani medical facilities
even as its inmate population rose from 6,600 to over
16,000 [
35
]. There was well beyond its capacity of
10,000 as the report released by the War Council
showed [
36
]. It was a result of poor living conditions,
physical brutalities and congestions that contagious, air
borne and water borne diseases spread in the camp.
Many detainees died due to these conditions.
Wamathe Chege Muharabata, a survivor narrated his
experience thus;
The numbers, as reported by Colonial secretary
seemed low based on his own observation of
the detainees who were in the camp at the time
of the outbreak. Some days there were dozens,
sometimes as a many as two dozen Mau Mau
being buried or incarcerated. We worked day
in day out to control the outbreak. Whatever
the encounter, I had never seen and haven’t
seen that ever since [
37
].
The informant was part of the burial working
party. The informants stated that group alone buried
over six hundred bodies and lost count when those they
buried reached around five hundred. He was extremely

John Ndungu Kungu., Saudi J. Humanities Soc. Sci., Vol-3, Iss-10 (Oct, 2018): 1184-1192
Available online: http://scholarsmepub.com/sjhss/ 1190
tired but two-thirds of these corpses were as a result of
the typhoid. The typhoid problems hardly ended the
epidemic at Manyani. Though Baring, decided not to
quarantine these facilities. He was ready to move
detainees once they were classified. The detainees were
taken out of the reception centres to work camps in
order to free up space for the continuous flow of new
inmates yet the work camps were expanding slowly
prior to Operation Anvil. The rapid influx of new
detainees forced Baring to create dozens of new camps
in order to accommodate the reformed Mau Mau
coming out of Manyani, Mackinon Road and Langata
detention camps. In 1954, the Colonial Secretary of
State reported that 63 people had died of typhoid in
Manyani and another 760 were infected with the disease
[
38
].
Manyani became an incubator for a variety of
infectious diseases, despite warning from local medical
officials. Kenya’s director of medical services, T.F.
Anderson issued recommendations ranging from proper
sanitation facilities, water supplies, and construction
materials to medical staffing, inoculations and
nutritional requirements, most of which all were
ignored [
39
]. Taxi Lewis, the Prison Commissioner did
not comply with Foster’s direction concerning the
situation at Manyani [
40
]. Medical practitioners were
required despite the Governors concern that such a
situation would be seen by some as a prize to Mau Mau.
The British media such as the Times, The Daily
Telegraph and the Scotsman who carried the news of
the outbreak of diseases at Manyani. They strongly
suggested that remedial action was necessary but this
landed on deaf ears. The colonial government, through
the Governor’s office, denied publicly the incidence of
typhoid fever [
41
]. The War Council admitted the
situation in Manyani, calling the camp a sanitary
unhygienic.
Eventually, H. Stott, the medical adviser to
Kenya’s Labour Department was appointed to
coordinate the health and sanitation requirements in the
pipeline. He found a myriad of problems which he
attributed, not just to lack of resources but also to the
refusal of many officers in the administration to address
the health issues. In November 1954 “Report on Health
and Hygiene in emergency Camps,” Stott observed that
members of the administration held lower health and
sanitation standards from Africans than they did for
themselves [
42
].
Despite Scotts, efforts infectious diseases
continued to be ubiquitous in the pipeline. Pulmonary
tuberculosis was also reported, with Kenya’s director of
medical services remarking, “The number of cases of
pulmonary tuberculosis which is being disclosed in the
prison and detention camps as causing embarrassment.”
The overcrowded conditions, together with the
detainees weakened immune systems exhaustion from
forced labour, and poor access to proper clothing or
blankets facilitated its spread [
43
]. Waterborne
infections ―particularly dysentery, diarrhoea, and other
“epidemic intestinal diseases also ran through the camp.
The chronically sick detainees in Manyani were: 27
with tuberculosis due to congestion, four lepers, two
with heart disease, and three with dementia due to
depression, 1 with chronic asthma due to dust and with
encephala myotitis [
44
]. There were also reports of
vitamin deficiency diseases, with cases of scurvy,
pellagra, kwashiorkor and night blindness afflicting
some detainees in Manyani.
It was against the background of these many
problems of Manyani that high-ranking officials visited
Manyani detention camp led by H.G.Waters, the
assistant Medical Services in Kenya, paid a visit to
Manyani in May 1954. At the time of his visit Waters
was told that camp was full its capacity off 6600
detainees. He was deeply concerned that the disregard
of those conditions by the officers commanding the
camp might result in a serious outbreak of contagious
diseases. Waters found further unhygienic sanitation
conditions were excrement. There was a very dangerous
threat from typhoid, dysentery and diarrhoea to the
camp inmates [
45
].
Major Gregory Smith of prison headquarters
had examined the site and. He made an agreement with
the Divisional Engineer of the railway temporarily to
double the supply of water to Manyani from railway
sources. The prison officer in charge and the Medical
Department wrote a letter to the Secretary of State to
ask the treasurer for the improvement of the sanitary
system at Manyani. They noted there was a great need
for further washing facilities and blocks of latrines as
the main difficulty at Manyani was the mixture with the
sewerage water of food from the kitchen. This was
caused by the spillage of posho, beans and other
vegetables during cooking operations. This situation
was made worse by dust which was blown into the open
drains [
46
].
CONCLUSION
Mau detainees were incarcerated in remote
and distant places to weaken the Mau Mau uprising.
Governor Baring declaration of the State of Emergency
was the final blow to the Mau Mau. The State of
Emergency paved way for the creation of villages,
barbed enclosures and detention camps to help manage
and stamp out the Mau Mau rebellion. They were also
used as tools of confinement, control and domination.
The State of Emergency legitimized murder and
detention of the Mau Mau fighters. The security agents
were empowered to arrest and execute all the people
that did not follow the Emergency regulations. Manyani
prison became the ideal place for political detainees.

John Ndungu Kungu., Saudi J. Humanities Soc. Sci., Vol-3, Iss-10 (Oct, 2018): 1184-1192
Available online: http://scholarsmepub.com/sjhss/ 1191
REFERENCES
1. Peter Gashuru mwangi, O.I. 20/06/2015
2. For more information on the Man Eaters of
Tsavo see J.H. (1979). Patterson, the Man-
Eaters of Tsavo and the East African
Adventure. pp. 31-39
3. Elkins, C. Britain’s Gulag, p.97
4. KNA/K365.3. (1959). Adminstrative Enquiry
into Allegation of ill-treatment and irregular
practices Against Detainees At Manyani Camp
and Fort Hall District works Conducted by
A.P.Jack Deputy public Prosecutor April 1959
Nairobi.
5. Joseph Langat and Umasi Mohamed, O. I.
28/08/2015
6. Nicholas K.Maswai, Prsioner officer in-charge
of Manyani prison, O.I. 26/08/2015.
See also Partha Sarathi Gupta, Imperialism and
the British Labour Movement,1914-
1964.NewYork.Holmes and Meier,1975
7. KNA/PRO/CO/822794/1. (1954).
Memorundum from Thomas Askwith
“Rehabilitation”.
8. See also KNA/PRO/ 822/796/36. (1954).
Telegram from R.G.Turnbull to Secretary of
State for the Colonies, 11 May. included in the
post-Anvil detainee figures who were picked
during the notorious Anvil in Nairobi
9. Hiti Njoroge Mureithi,O.I.21/06/2015
10. These numbers are the government figures
and are not adjusted for intake and release rates
as those that are extent and are not reliable
enough to make the adjustment
11. KNA/VQ1/32/4 Memorandum from the
Governor Baring,”Movement of Kikuyu”28th
sept 1953
12. Hiti Njoroge Mureithi, O.I. 21/06/2015.
13. KNA/K365.3 /Adminstrative enquiry into
Allegation into Allegation of Ill-treatment and
irregular Practices
14. KNA/AH/9/31 Emergency Movement of
detainees policy 1952-1957
15. KNA/AH/9/31 Emergency Movement of
Defense Policy 1952-1957
16. C.ElkinsBritish Gulag,p.134
17. Muchuchu waMwaura,O.I.21/06/2015
18. Screening was one of the measures used by the
colonialist to destroy Mau Mau.The objective
was to stamp out so that they were deterred
from farther recruitment and punish those who
were already involved,the screening teams
were either localized at villages or urban areas
the screening teams worked under a District
officer
19. Jacob Maina Gakungu, O.I. 23/06/2015.
20. For More detailed on oathing see G.Kershaw,
Mau Mau From Below (Nairobi,1997),p.219
21. Peter KaranjaWagatha,O.I.19/06/2015.
22. KNA/AH/9/37, Complaints by detainees in
prison camp. 1954-1955.
23. KNA/ACW/28/13, Internal security and
Defence Ministry of Messes and cantons 1956-
1958.
24. C. Elkins, Britain’s Gulag,p.93
25. KNA/PRO/CO/822/479/3 Hugh Fraser, M.P.
“Report of Visit to Kenya,” 6 October 1953.
See also Barbara Castle,Fighting All The Way
(London,1993),p.xi
26. KNA/K365.3 Adminstrative Enquiry into
Allegation of ill-treatment and irregular
practices Against Detainees At Manyani Camp
and Fort Hall District works Conducted by Mr.
A.P.Jack Deputy public Prosecutor April 1959
Nairobi.
27. KNA/K365.3: Adminstrative Enquiry into
Allegation of Ill-treatment and Irregular
practices Against Detainees at Manyani Camp
and Fort Hall District Works, April 1959,
Nairobi.
28. Ibid
29. Caroline Elkins“Detention, Rehabilitation, and
the Destruction of Kikuyu Society in John
Lonsdale & E. S. Atieno O dhiambo (eds) Mau
Mau Nationhood; Arms. Authority A Narration
(London,2003),pp.192-226
30. Mwangi WaMaina,O.I. 27/06/2015
31. KNA/AH/21/17 (1954). Manyani Detention
Order.
32. Elkins C. Britain’s Gulag. p.132
33. KNA/PRO/WO/276/428/12. (1954). Manyani
Camp 18 October, 1954 Typhoid spread
through Manyani prison.
34. KNA/PRO/CO/822/801 Colonel
W.G.S.(1954). Foster Director of Medical
SrevicesManyani and Mackinon Road
camps,”25 May 1954 See also KNA/AH/9/5/5
Minutes from Turnbull “Notes on Public
Health and Public Work at Manyani,” 15 May
1954
35. KNA/PRO/CO/822/801/14 Conditions at
Detention Camps 30 June 1954
36. KNA/PRO/CO/822/801/35War council
brief,”Numbers of Detainee”15 October 1954
37. Wamathe ChegeMuharabata O.I. 27/06/2015
38. For Detailed information see Elkins,The
British Gulag
39. KNA/AH/9/13/7/1. (1954). Memorundum
from the Director of Medical Services,
Medical Estimates:Work camps.”
40. KNA/AH/9/16. (1954). Memorandum from
Lewis to Minster of defense”Prison
Department Emergency Expenditure Sanitation
Mackinon Road and Manyani.

John Ndungu Kungu., Saudi J. Humanities Soc. Sci., Vol-3, Iss-10 (Oct, 2018): 1184-1192
Available online: http://scholarsmepub.com/sjhss/ 1192
41. KNA/AH/9/19/22.(1954). Memorandum from
H.Stott to Lewis Central Province Works
Camp.”
42. KNA/MAA/7/813/36/1, Memorandum from
T.F. (1954). Anderson, Director of Medical
Services to the Commissioner of Prisons”
Pulmonary Tuberculosis in Prison and
Detention Camp.
43. KNA/AH/9/13/43 Stott. H. (1954). “Report on
Health and Hygiene in Emergency Camps.”
44. KNA/PRO/CO/822/801 H.G. (1994). Waters
Public Health Report, Manyani Camp. 9 May
1954
45. See also Caroline Elkins, The Struggle for
Mau Mau Rehabilitation in Colonial Kenya