TY - JOUR
T1 - Architecture of denial
T2 - Imperial violence, the construction of law and historical knowledge during the mau mau uprising, 1952–1960
AU - Appiah, Juliana
AU - Yeboah, Roland Mireku
AU - Asah-Asante, Akosua
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 Brill Nijhoff. All rights reserved.
PY - 2021
Y1 - 2021
N2 - In 2013, the UK government settled a class action suit, which alleged that the British Colonial Government had subjected Kenyans to detainment, ill treatment and torture during the 1952–1960 ‘Kenya Emergency’. During the trial proceedings, the efforts of three expert historical witnesses for the prosecution – Caroline Elkins, David Anderson and Huw Bennett – led to the discovery of a cache of over 8,000 historical files from 36 former British colonies. The material contained within these documents suggested not only that Britain was aware of pervasive human rights abuses occurring throughout Kenya during the Emergency, but that the use of such violence was in fact endorsed and systematically regulated at the highest levels of the colonial administration. Drawing on Foucault’s conception of historical archives as ‘systems of discursivity’, and making use of the testimonies of the three experts, this article explores how the British Colonial Administration was able to dominate the discursive space surrounding Kenyan law and Mau Mau identity, allowing it both to justify the implementation of systemic violence throughout the Emergency, and to evade legal responsibility for these abuses at the time, and for decades afterward.
AB - In 2013, the UK government settled a class action suit, which alleged that the British Colonial Government had subjected Kenyans to detainment, ill treatment and torture during the 1952–1960 ‘Kenya Emergency’. During the trial proceedings, the efforts of three expert historical witnesses for the prosecution – Caroline Elkins, David Anderson and Huw Bennett – led to the discovery of a cache of over 8,000 historical files from 36 former British colonies. The material contained within these documents suggested not only that Britain was aware of pervasive human rights abuses occurring throughout Kenya during the Emergency, but that the use of such violence was in fact endorsed and systematically regulated at the highest levels of the colonial administration. Drawing on Foucault’s conception of historical archives as ‘systems of discursivity’, and making use of the testimonies of the three experts, this article explores how the British Colonial Administration was able to dominate the discursive space surrounding Kenyan law and Mau Mau identity, allowing it both to justify the implementation of systemic violence throughout the Emergency, and to evade legal responsibility for these abuses at the time, and for decades afterward.
KW - Alternative narrative
KW - Colonial Administration
KW - Colonial violence
KW - Hanslope Disclosure
KW - Legal responsibility
KW - Moral culpability
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85124835829&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1163/17087384-12340080
DO - 10.1163/17087384-12340080
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85124835829
SN - 2210-9730
VL - 14
SP - 3
EP - 27
JO - African Journal of Legal Studies
JF - African Journal of Legal Studies
IS - 1
ER -