By Kepher Otieno - Reporter
Kenya, 17 December 2025 - The long-simmering debate over compensation for Kenya’s Mau Mau freedom fighters has resurfaced, underscoring unresolved questions about historical justice, state responsibility and colonial accountability more than six decades after independence.
Leaders of the Mau Mau Pioneer Cultural Organisation are calling for fresh negotiations with the British government, arguing that a landmark compensation deal reached in 2013 was narrow in scope and excluded the majority of those affected by colonial-era abuses.
They are also seeking the Kenyan government’s political and diplomatic backing to reopen the matter.
According to the organisation’s national chairman, Kiragu Waihenya, only about 5,000 claimants benefited from the KSh3 billion settlement reached with Britain, largely because eligibility depended on documentary proof of direct abuse during the 1952–1960 State of Emergency. Those compensated were mainly individuals who could demonstrate detention, torture or sexual violence.
Waihenya contends that this threshold effectively locked out thousands of genuine freedom fighters and their families, many of whom lacked documentation due to the chaotic and violent conditions of the period. As a result, he says, the compensation process failed to reflect the scale and collective nature of the suffering endured during the struggle for independence.
Speaking to journalists in Murang’a on Wednesday, Waihenya framed the renewed push as a matter of urgency and moral obligation.
Many surviving fighters, he noted, are elderly, impoverished and at risk of dying without recognition or material redress for their role in Kenya’s liberation. Others have already passed away, leaving families to pursue claims on their behalf.
More from Kenya
Beyond financial compensation, the group is also raising broader grievances linked to land ownership. Waihenya argued that some former fighters still live as squatters, despite having fought to reclaim land from colonial rule, a reality that reflects deeper, unresolved inequalities rooted in Kenya’s colonial past.
The organisation says it represents more than 20,000 registered members, including surviving freedom fighters and their descendants.
However, internal fragmentation remains a challenge. Waihenya acknowledged the existence of more than 50 Mau Mau groupings, warning that disunity could weaken efforts to press for compensation. He called for cohesion as a strategic necessity if the renewed campaign is to gain traction.
At the policy level, the absence of a clear legal framework for compensating Mau Mau fighters remains a major obstacle. The Kenyan government has largely maintained that the 2013 settlement closed the matter legally, and that any further claims should be pursued directly with the British government. This position has fuelled frustration among veterans, who argue that the state has been non-committal despite repeated appeals.
So far, official recognition of the Mau Mau has largely taken symbolic forms, including the naming of roads and stadiums and the erection of monuments. While these gestures acknowledge historical significance, critics argue they fall short of addressing material deprivation and long-standing grievances.
As the compensation debate is revived, it once again raises difficult questions about how Kenya and Britain reckon with the legacy of colonial violence—and whether justice delayed can still be meaningfully delivered to those who bore its heaviest costs.
