How land syndicates were born long before Kenya was conceived

Majengo Kanamai squatters demonstrate to demand government intervention after they were rendered homeless when a tycoon acquired the disputed land in Kisauni in Mombasa County on January 14, 2014. Inset: Sir Charles Eliot. [File, Standard]

The bewitching beauty of Kenya’s numerous undulating hills, her expansive lush green plains ringed by scenic forests have always acted as an irresistible beckon to landspeculators, both foreign and local.

It appears that from the days of ivory and slave trade, foreigners have plotted how to conquer and own some of these breathtaking lands.

Today, just like in the pre-colonial and colonial times, occupants of public offices still use land as currency to buy or maintain friendship, gifting away parcels of land to foreigners and people of means who had easy access to power.

The most lingering land ‘gift’ which almost brought down the Imperial British East Africa (IBEA), the company running the parchment we know as Kenya, took place 115 years ago.

On May 25, 1903, IBEA commissioner General Charles Eliot sent an urgent telegram to the British Foreign Secretary Henry Charles Keith Petty-Fitzmaurice, fifth Marquess of Landsowne, seeking guidance on how to deal with some land speculators.

Eliot was acting on a request by three South Africans — Flemmer, Bowker and Chamberlain — who had approached him seeking to be allocated some 650,000 acres. Since this was the first time the Commissioner General was getting a request for a land grant of this magnitude, he thought it wise to seek guidance from the Foreign Secretary in London. The law then was silent on such a development.

Uncharacteristic of the British bureaucracy, Eliot’s telegram requesting any background information on the applicants was ignored. He got no reply even after he followed up with more letters.

On September 30, Eliot sent two letters referring to the telegram of May 25 and also asked for further directions, indicating that since Lord Landsowne did not reply to the previous telegram, he would proceed with the land offer.

He even enclosed the initial application from Flemmer, Chamberlain and Bowker in the letters.

Without further ado, Eliot invoked his powers and gave away 650,000 acres of land to the South Africans.

The applicants were jubilant and at some point, it was reported to Landsowne how one of the beneficiaries, Chamberlain, was bragging in South Africa how he had been gifted prime land in Kenya for nothing.

The Foreign Secretary’s response was quick. He sent a telegram to Eliot on February 23, 1904, inquiring whether any land had been offered to Chamberlain and his associates. Eliot replied three days later confirming that he had granted the landlease to the South Africans.

At this point, Landsowne sent a brief reply on February 27th saying that he did not approve of the land grant. This was followed up by a longer letter in which Lansdowne repeated his disapproval of the land grant and explained that he was in the middle of negotiations for a similar land lease of 500 square miles and the proposal to establish a Jewish state in  Kenya.

According to Lansdownehis office had not been involved by Eliot in his land deal.

To Eliot, this was treacherous and outright betrayal. He also felt slighted that Lansdownehad received advice from junior officials.

He wrote on March 4, 1904; “should your Lordship prefer to be guided by the advice of my subordinates…I have the honour to tender my resignation.”

On the very following day, Eliot further explained that since his original telegram from May 1903 had gone unanswered, he had assumed that the British Government was not opposed to the land grant. He wrote; “the fault rests with your Lordships Office, for when they first appeared last May I telegraphed home asking for information about them. This telegram was ignored, and not even answered by dispatch.”

Establish an opium empire

In Eliot’s view, he had already given his word to the South Africans and would not go back on it: “Sooner than let this be done…I will resign the Government service.”

As the dispute raged, Landsowne asserted that he never received the telegram on May 25, 1903. But Eliot went to the telegraph company and asked for the telegraphic recorder as evidence that the telegram was indeed sent. In a telegram dated March 11, 1904, he wrote to Landsowne that the recorder did exist and demonstrated that the telegram had been sent.

What galled Eliot more was the three South Africans he had promised land were ill-treated by Landsowne who was in favour of an application by East African Syndicate. Interestingly, the syndicate, fronted by Earnest Gedge a former IBEA official, wanted  to establish an opium empire on the 321,236 acres they had applied directly to Landsowne.

While tendering his land application on behalf of East African Syndicate, Gedge had written: “I am of the opinion that it is worthwhile to follow this matter (opium) as I have reason to believe a good marketable quality is grown in this country. I would suggest that the Foreign Office (London) should be approached on the subject.

In his letter to Elliot, Gedge had observed that he had evidence of subsistence opium growing in Nyanza. “If I remember correctly, he (Hobley — an administrator in Nyanza) also mentioned that some Hindus and other settlers were instituting enquiries with a view of obtaining permits, from the Government for its growth and sale in the protectorate.”

Elliot and Landsowne disagreed when the syndicate was granted land.

Consequently Elliot resigned on June 21, 1904, through a public telegram to the Prime Minster, saying, “Lord Landsowne ordered me to refuse grants of land to certain private persons while giving a monopoly of land on unduly advantageous terms to the East Africa Syndicate. I have refused to execute these instructions, which I consider unjust and impolitic.”

This marked the beginning of a trend where large tracts of land were hived off by those in authority and allocated to their to well-connected companies, families or cronies through questionable procedures at the expense of the locals.

The most classic case was the seizure of about 500,000 acres by 22 private companies between 2011 and 2012 in Lamu County through corrupt and dubious means.

This placed 70 per cent of all arable land in Lamu in the hands of  some ‘criminal conspirators” according to State House, who dispossessed families in the area. The companies had been allocated between 11 acres and 80 acres of land.

The Coast region is still grappling with huge swaths of land in Taita Taveta and other parts which are in the hands of prominent politicians who secured them by virtue of their offices.

Earlier in 2009, a plan by the Government to lease 40,000 acres of its 500,000 acres to Qatar for farming  in Tana Delta generated controversy with critics accusing the Mwai Kibaki administration of giving away land to foreigners instead of involving local farmers in boosting food security.

Last year, an American company, Dominion, which had secured a lease for over 17,000 acres in Yala in Nyanza closed shop. This was after the project which was initiated in 2002 ostensibly to liberate locals from hunger and poverty buckled under the burden of controversy and endless politics.