MAASAI LAND : PART 1 - A HISTORY
By the Honourable Justice M. ole Keiwua
Prior to the coming of Europeans to Kenya, Maasai land rights, were bundled together and vested in the community, to hold in trust for use of the Maasai people. The community knew the extent of its land. Any encroachment by outsiders was repulsed by force of arms. Protection by the community of its land, worked so long a power not mightier than, that of the Maasai was not in the picture.
Communal land ownership was disrupted by the British who came, saw and coveted the land. A hasty study of the Maasai was undertaken with equally hasty conclusions made.
G. R. SANDFORD in his "An Administrative and Political History of the Maasai Reserve says:-
"With a view to the better understanding of the steps which have already been taken and of the policy which in the past been pursued in dealing with the Maasai situated within the limits of the East Africa Protectorate, it appears desirable, in the first instance, to recapitulate concisely the facts which have at various times been recorded on the subject of their tribal characteristics and peculiar organization, attributes which have rendered it impracticable to carry out in their case the policies which have been adopted in dealing with the majority of other tribes in the Protectorate. The Maasai were among the first tribes which came into contact with the administration but their conservatism has been so great, and their subservience to antiquated tribal custom and tradition has been so powerful that it has proved impossible as yet materially to alter and renovate their ideas."
In 1890 Maasailand was devastated by triple evils. A cattle plague struck almost wiped out the cattle, while the human population was decimated by smallpox. The British added their toll. They occupied and took the land Sandford G. R. says:-
"At the end of 1889, a cattle plague started on the East coast, opposite Eden, and spread inland. In the spring of 1890 it had not reached the Maasai country, but by the autumn of that year it had spread through Maasailand and Ukamba and the majority of the cattle and buffalo were dead. Simultaneously, the Maasai were attacked by the smallpox and their number considerably reduced. The cattle plague tamed their arrogance and largely deprived them of their means of subsistence and the subsequent disease found them weak and hungry and killed off large numbers."
The Report of the Kenya Land Commission, September 1933 says:-
"638 About the year 1883, a serious epidemic, which was believed by Joseph Thompson to have been rinderpest but was more probably pleuro-pneumonia, attacked their cattle and resulted in heavy losses, this was followed a few years latter by the great cattle plague known as rinderpest and their vast herds were to a large extent destroyed.
"639 A year or two later internal warfare recommenced, owing to a feud between Lenana and Sendeyu was successful, and certain sections which supported Lenana, notably the Kaputei and Matapatu, were heavily defeated and were forced to seek refuge with the Kikuyu. Later the Purko, then, as now, the most powerful division of the Maasai, threw in their weight on the side of Lenana, defeated Sendeyu in a series of battles, and drove him and his followers in a south-westerly direction……………………………………the feuds between Lenana and Sendeyu, after a brief reconciliation, was renewed and, but for Government intervention, the would again have been at each others throats………….."
It is possible that the British supported Olonana forces. It is not imaginable for the British to watch by while a "valued friend" like Olonana fought unaided. Hence an added reason for Olonana's willingness to give the British anything including the gift of Maasailand.
LOSSES CONSEQUENT UPON BRITISH OCCUPATION
It began in 1903. The land was to be taken from the Maasai owners. The take-over was premised on so much inconsistency of reasoning which showed the British as out to dispossess the Maasai for any slightest of excuses. The Maasai did not surrender willingly their land. The British wrested it out of them. The Kenya Land Report says:-
"642. During 1903 applications were received from Europeans for land in the Rift Valley and elsewhere in places where the Maasai grazed their flocks and herds, and the question arose as to how far such applications could be granted without encroaching on the Maasai grazing rights. Considerable discussion took place, and in September of that year Sir Charles Eliot wrote a memorandum in which he stated:-
"In the discussion on this question two things seem to me to have been confused:-
1. The rights of the Maasai to inhabit particular district; 2. Their right to monopolize particular districts, and keep everybody else out.
The first right is undoubted, but the second appears to me most questionable. As a matter of expediency it may sometimes be best to make reserves, but, as a matter of principle, I cannot admit that wandering tribes have a right to keep other and superior races out of large tracts merely because they have acquired the habit of straggling over far more land than they can utilize."
The rights of the Maasai to own their land had been watered down to mere grazing rights. Sir Charles Eliot cannot in fairness call the Maasai wanderers. Between the Maasai on their land, and the British who had wandered all the way form little England, who was a wanderer? It was no honour for the British to go out as bullies to scavenge for other peoples lands.
This scavenging is the reason for the dispossession at the Rift Valley.
"643. The late Sir Charles Stewart, who succeeded Sir Charles Eliot as Governor, discussed the Maasai question immediately after his arrival and came to the conclusion that the removal of the Maasai from the Rift Valley into two Reserves was the best solution. "644. The position was explained to the Maasai chiefs and representatives at meeting held at Naivasha on 9th August, 1904, and on the following day an agreement was signed…………………………."
The Maasai were presented with a fait accompli. The new Governor concluded that their removal was the best solution to the take over.
"646. The Maasai failed in important particulars to carry out their part of the 1904 Agreement. Sections named in the text of the Agreement as the Elburgo (Purko), Gakunuki (Keekonyokie), Loita, Damat and Laitutok did not move absolutely to Laikipia (the Northern Reserve), but many of them, including the whole of the Loita and Damat sections and a considerable number of the Elburgo (Purko) and Gakunuki (Keekonyokie) remained in the south…….."
Maasai unity was not the driving motive behind the 1911 Agreement. It was a conspiracy by Olonana to reward the British.
"649. When it became clear on the one hand to Government that the Maasai were not respecting their new boundaries, and to Lenana, the paramount chief, on the other hand, that the separation of the tribe into two areas had caused greater disunity in the tribal organization than he had anticipated and a weakening of his won authority, proposals for the concentrations of the tribe in an extended southern Reserve began to be discussed. While a full and complete statement of the objects and reasons of the proposal would require mention of the fact that the Northern Reserve was to be vacated partly for European settlement……………………." land.
Sight should not be lost of the fact that the 1904 agreement had a communicating corridor between these Reserves. Let it not be thought the distance between Loitokitok and Kilgoris has made things easier than when a portion of the Maasai lived in Laikipia and the other lived at such proximity as Suswa! If it was the unity of the Maasai, the 1911 Agreement intended, why did the Maasai, so soon after return to Laikipia?
"651. The move began in June 1911, and proceeded throughout July and August of that year by four different routes converging on the Mau in the neighbourhood of the "promised land". There a hitch occurred owing to numbers of Maasai with their stock congregating in that area. There was a great congestion and the Maasai suffered some losses in cattle. They consequently returned to the European farm areas between Njoro and Elmenteita and for a time the move was suspended. The check had, however, affected the views of the Maasai and there was an agitation supported by Legalishu and some of the more influential elders and moran, to be allowed to return to Laikipia. The move recommenced in 1912 and was completed by the following March."
Back to Papers
