Debunking the myth that Gikuyu grabbed land at the Coast of Kenya; who actually is Responsible for the Complex land quagmire and landlessness in the region? The untold fact!


The complex land quagmire at the Coast of Kenya has persisted into the 21st Century, often being used as a political carrot dangled to the ignorant coasterians to lure them to vote, mainly the side of the opposition.


But what exactly do we know about the landlessness, the squatter problem and absentee landlords in the Coast? What is the genesis and who are responsible for this suffering that have baffled every regime and seems to be difficult to address?

The genesis of the Coastal land quagmire can be traced from the complex history of the East Africa Protectorate (EAP) as Kenya was known from 1895 when the British Empire entered a treaty with the then sultan of Zanzibar; to the events of 1920. There had been uneasy relations that already existed between the Africans and the Arabs residing within the ten mile coastal strip which was assumed to belong to the sultanate of Zanzibar after the Portuguese were ousted from East African Coast.

The sultanates’ nominal possession of the coastal strip as per 1895 agreement between the British and the sultan later proved to be a major obstacle to the development of EAP, including land distribution, allocation and use by not only the black natives, but also the British government, since the Coast was a protectorate but not a colony or under British dominion.

The desire by the British Empire to change the status of the protectorate exposed the intricate political arrangement of the territory. It became clear that the incorporation of the ten mile coastal strip into the colony would arouse international conflicts from other countries that had entered into trading agreements with the sultan of Zanzibar. The sultanate of Zanzibar for instance had signed various treaties with United States of America in 1833, France in 1862, and Germany in 1886, which recognized his sovereignty. And control of the region. 

Notably, the 1886 Anglo-Germany treaty did not abrogate the former treaties. In fact, the 1886 treaty is the one that internationally recognized the ten mile coastal strip as the rightful dominion of the sultanate of Zanzibar. The Coastal strip and all the people thus remained under the dominion of the Sultanate.

The British government was allowed to administer the 10 mile on condition of paying £17,000 to the Sultan of Zanzibar annually.  The status of Africans residing in the controversial area remained as subjects of the Sultan and his fellow Arabs. Derogatively, they were referred to the as the Wanyika and servants and had no right to own land. This not only applied to the territory in the 10mile strip but also the Nyika land where Mijkenda mostly lived.  

Back ground
Black natives are believed to have settled in Coast in 100AD and often traded with merchants from Mediterranean world, Persia, Oman, India and China. It would seem the conquest of the coast by the Portuguese from 1500 and the ruthless administration they established was very unpopular with East Africans and was the main cause for the Swahili to enter into a marriage of convenience with the Oman Arabs.

In 1660 Swahili sent a delegation to Muscat the headquarters of Oman leadership seeking military support to rid the coast of the Christian presence. The delegation was led by Mwinyi Nguti, Mwinyi Mole bin Haji, Mwinyi Ndao bin Haji, Motomato wa Mtorogo and Kubo wa Mwamzungu but the sultan refused to assist. A second delegation was sent in 1729 and was able to convince the sultan to offer military assistance. 

It was this military assistance that routed the Portuguese out of East Africa in 1798 after a series of battles over Mombasa. Later sultan Said Seyyid transferred his headquarters from Muscat to Zanzibar in 1856 which enabled him and his descendants to have full political control over East African coast. Thus the region came under the rule of the Sultanate.

Subsequent sultans of Zanzibar regarded the black natives (The Wanyika) as second class citizens with no right to own land. They apportioned huge tracks of land to fellow Arabs, including land inhabited and where Mijikenda villages in the region were. The Arabs were given title deed to these lands and had the right to use them in any manner they wanted. In essence, black natives at the Coast never had the right to own land up to the time of independence in 1963.

During the second Lancaster Conference there were two parallel conferences, one on colony and the other on the protectorate. The protectorate which covered the ten miles coastal strip was represented by Arabs, but Jomo Kenyatta and Ronald Ngala and a few other African delegates attended the deliberations of both conferences. The Arabs wanted the ten miles Coastal strip to either be given autonomy or secede to join the sultanate of Zanzibar instead of being incorporated in independent Kenya.

The African elected leaders led by Ngala were of the view that the coastal strip was rightfully African territory and should be part and parcel of independent Kenya.  In fact, Oginga Odinga wanted the 1895 agreement between the sultan of Zanzibar to be declared null and void.  Tom Mboya was even more candid and proposed that those Arabs that were not ready to join Independent Kenya were free to go back to Arabia, mostly Yemen.

In the Kenyan Legislative Council (LegCo) and among the various political parties formed after the first Lancaster Conference, there were hot debates on the future of the Kenyan Coast. While African political parties; KANU and KADU supported integration of the Coastal strip to be part of Kenya, the Arabs who were the land owners with titles given for  free by various sultans  formed a party called  Mwambao United Front to champion the secession of the Coast to be under Arab administration together with Zanzibar.  

The debate came into dead end when Jomo Kenyatta categorically stated that any move to separate the strip from the reminder of the colony would be resisted. A commission led by Mr Robertson noted that the Coastal strip ought to be part of Kenya because there it was still administered by the British empire, though owned by the sultan; the black population wanted to be part of Kenya; the Arabs were a minority and secession wouldn’t make any economic sense to the region and the port of Mombasa had been built by loans paid by subjects of the whole Kenyan colony.
Sir James Robertson’s commission recommended that: 

The Coastal strip should form part of Kenya under the following conditions:

1. Muslim law, religion and education should be incorporated in the Kenyan constitution, which later became the basis of establishing the Kadhi’s Courts in Kenya. 

2.The strip should be integrated with Kenya before independence and that the 1895 agreement should be abrogated. 

3. Proposed retention of Arab administrative officers; the Liwalis and Mudirs at the coast to ensure Muslim traditions are observed. 

4. Recommended that land titles issued by sultan to Arabs should be acknowledged and guaranteed. This could be safeguarded by creating Coast Land Board with executive and advisory roles to handle land disputes, its disposal and transfer of titles. 

5. He recommended that the sultan should be paid compensation of £675,000 by the British government for agreeing to forfeit his claim over the coastal strip. The government should also pay £400,000 for the £200,000, plus interest loaned by the sultan after the Germans bought their section of ten mile coastal strip from the sultan but the money was banked in London.

These recommendations were presented to British Parliament by Secretary of State for colonies (S of S) in December 1961. Kenyan leaders were required by the British Colonial government to show good will and commitment in protecting the rights of the sultanates subjects so as to end fear and suspicion on the part of the Arabs. 

As a demonstration of this good will, Jomo Kenyatta signed two agreements; one with the Prime Minister of Zanzibar on 5th October, 1963. The second agreement was between Kenyatta the Secretary of State for Colonies, Prime minister of Zanzibar and the sultan on 8th October, 1963.
The agreement was signed in London on 5th October, 1963 and Kenyatta placed on record the following undertakings by the government of Kenya.

1.   That free exercise of any creed or religion will at all times be safeguarded and, in particular, His Highness’s present subjects who are the Muslim faith and their descendants will at all times be ensured of complete freedom of worship and the preservation of their own religious buildings and institution
2.       The jurisdiction of Chief Kadhis will at all times be preserved and will be extended to the determination of questions of Muslim law relating to personal status in the proceedings in which all parties profess the Muslim religion(The reason why Chief Kadhi’s courts appear in the constitution)

3.      The freehold titles to land in the coast owned by Arabs in region that are already registered will at all times be recognized, steps will be taken to ensure the continuation of the procedure for the registration of new freehold titles and rights of freeholders will at all times be preserved save for so far as it may be necessary to acquire freehold land for public purposes, in which event full and prompt compensation will be paid.  This document was signed by Jomo Kenyatta and Mohammed Shamte, Prime Minister of Zanzibar.




The Quagmire:  Jomo’s fear and the need to have Coast forming part of Kenya was his only mistake.

1.       The commitment by the Prime Minister Jomo Kenyatta minimized the fears of the Arabs over their future stay in Kenya by reassuring them of their land security at the Coast. However, the commitment ignored the aspirations of Africans who thought that independence would address centuries of land dispositions by Arab settlers. (True grabbers) It meant that Africans would continue to be squatters. 

2.  Further by accepting to recognize freehold title deeds held by a few Asians,  it overlooked African traditional land tenure system. The Miji Kenda continues to have rightful claims over certain sacred Kayas within the former ten mile coastal strip, but have no title deeds to support their traditional claims. Consequently, tourists' hotels and cottages have been built on some of these sacred places.

3.       Additionally, Kenya being a free market economy, it  recognized the concept of willing seller and willing buyer. Consequently, only those with money could own land within the coastal strip based on the law of supply and demand. This has led to exorbitant prices for land within the coastal strip especially land adjacent to the beaches.  Some of the Arabs who were retuning back to Oman sold their land to those with money leading to the current situation.

4.      Admittedly, the thirst to own land at the coast by private developers has led to grabbing of beaches by moneyed tycoons, mostly Asians, which has denied citizens the right to enjoy and have access to these natural resources.
5. It is equally disheartening to observe that international agreements which did not recognize the rights of the Africans have continued to affect the Kenyan people fifty years after independence. There is need to re-examine all colonial agreements to address adequately historical injustices. The government should come up with a land policy that would address these historical injustices without creating new ones. The policy should address land use, protection of wetlands and environment in general for the future generations.

Conclusion

1. In conclusion, Jomo Kenyatta’s government was in a quagmire in regard to the 10 mile coastal ownership and he had no choice but recognize the freehold land titles. The problem of land was already in existence and was created by the Arabs led by the Sultanate.

2.As results of the treaties entered and the subsequent exchange of ownership through willing seller willing buyer, it’s very difficult to address the land problem, without political goodwill and there is no political party with the capacity to do it. 

3. Billions of money will be required to solve the problem by compulsory acquiring land still owned by Arabs like the Mazrui and Swaleh Nguru families, and those that were sold to third parties to compensate them, their investments and distribute the land to the natives. This is almost an impossible and very complex process.
  1. Some of the Arabs who never sold their land and had left for their homeland in Yemen have their great grandchildren still owning land in Kenya, popularly known as absentee landlords. The signed treaty legally still recognizes their ownership.


  1. The rise of MRC was out of the fear by the land barons, some of who are living in Yemen that the new constitution would compel them to surrender their titles, and thus perhaps funded MRC to advocate the original Arab agenda of secession.
6. The notion that Kikuyus have grabbed land at the Coast is a political propaganda. Not even the opposition can solve this quagmire in the near future since quite a number of them are also beneficiary of the status quo. It’s a malignant cancer started by the Arabs who regarded the black Coastal natives as slaves and had no right to land ownership. The British government exacerbated the problem by signing treaties that recognized the Arab dominion in the coast. Jomo Kenyatta, faced by a political puzzle had his hands tied.  All the coast leaders know about this quagmire but a just using the land question politically to hoodwink ignorant Coast voters. 


                                Your verdict?