The system of government in colonial Kenya

Karpov Grigory Doctor of History Senior Researcher, Institute of Africa, Russian Academy of Sciences 123001, Russia, Moskovskaya oblast', g. Moscow, ul. Spiridonovka, 30/1 gkarpov86@mail.ru Other publications by this author

After the establishment of the colonial regime in Kenya in 1895, the imperial authorities faced a legitimate question about how to manage this territory. There were no state bodies, territorial divisions, and ideas of power institutions close to Europeans. There was no legacy to build on. The entire administrative structure on the ground had to be implemented from scratch. It was only by the early 1920s that we can talk about a full-fledged transition from weak localized institutions to a stable system of departments and municipal bodies based on approved budgets^{[1, p. 267-282]}.

This process took place under the domination of the civilizational paradigm, which assumes that the natives had to be trained to be their "big brother" in building their own statehood. The supremacy of the interests of the African population was formally proclaimed as early as 1923, in fact, it was a question of a "guardianship" regime, in which the empire acted as a defender of local residents, often without even asking the latter about it^{[2, p. 55-65]}.

The honorable and most important role in the difficult task of building statehood belonged to the colonial managers. The English official literally radiated confidence that only he was well versed in local affairs and understood the indigenous people better than anyone else^{[3, p. 155-165]}. In this regard, the question of the legitimacy of the colonial government and its organs did not arise. This was taken for granted, along with the paternalism of Europeans towards Africans and migrants from South Asia.

The main authorities

All power during the protectorate (1895-1920) belonged to the commissioner, and during the colony itself (1920-1963) to the governor, who pursued the policy of the Ministry of Colonial Affairs and was responsible to the metropolis for the state of affairs in the territory entrusted to him. He shared a certain amount of power with two representative authorities – the Legislative and Executive Councils, and since 1954 – also with the Council of Ministers.

The Legislative Council arose in 1906 and consisted of appointed immigrants of European origin (official and unofficial members). In 1909, an Indian, Alibhai Jivanji, was appointed to the council for the first time. By 1919, Europeans had achieved the opportunity to be elected (demands of this kind had been received since 1911) to this body, which was quite in tune with the old but relevant slogan "no taxes without representation" ("no taxation without representation"). In 1927, representatives of the Indian community received the right to join the council on an elected basis, and the first Kenyan, Eliud Matu, became a member of this institution only in 1944, the second (in 1946) was Benaya Ohanga. The total number of council members increased to 54 by 1952, of which 21 (14 Europeans, six Indians and one Arab) were elected. In 1956, the council consisted of the Governor as president, the Speaker as Vice President and already 56 members, of whom 21 were still elected.

The Executive Council was also established in 1906 and included seven permanent members, three appointed Europeans (one of whom represented the interests of Africans) and one member of Arab origin. This body considered draft laws and also approved death sentences. After its creation in 1954 All members of the Council of Ministers of this body became members of the Executive Council. The Council of Ministers consisted of six officials and six unofficial members appointed by the Governor^{[4, p. 265-266]}. 

As necessary, the colonial Administration established commissions to address specific issues or coordinate the activities of existing structures. For example, in 1946, a special commission began working under the Legislative Council to develop new legislation on the problem of cruel treatment of Africans with animals ^{[5, p. 1105-1107]}. And in 1948, the "East African High Commission" ("East African High Commission"), dealing with the development of trade and industry, saw the light. Its predecessor was the so-called "East African Governors' Conference", an inter-territorial governing body that included the governors of Kenya, Uganda and Tanganyika.

The imperial authorities paid close attention to the selection of administrative personnel. Colonial officials, due to the almost unlimited range of duties and problems that had to be solved, received the broadest powers, which implied the need to categorically follow the general line, coupled with the absence of abuse. This state of affairs was achieved by the homogeneity of the staff through the recruitment of people close in age, views, social origin and education. This approach was briefly formulated in the concept of "trust the man on the spot" ("trust the man on the spot"), however, for this a person must be "right sort of man" ^{[3, p. 150]}.

Kenya has once again confirmed the generally accepted rule in this regard. The administrative apparatus was staffed mainly by people from the English middle class of provincial origin (families of priests, military and civil servants), who usually adhere to conservative views. They received schooling in private schools for boys, many later became graduates of Cambridge and Oxford, but without prospects for rapid career growth. These young people were not connected with the world of commerce and business, abstract concepts, theories and complex philosophical concepts were alien to them. The ideal of selfless service, the habit of power (the ability to subordinate and the willingness to obey) and empiricism prevailed over reflection. Due to this, these cadres did not succumb to an endless stream of very mundane tasks, ranging from stopping epidemics of tropical diseases to land disputes, and the level of corruption in the field was so low that the incorruptibility of British colonial employees became a byword ^{[3, p. 151]}.

The non-trivial combination of appointed and elected members, together with the corresponding powers, actually reduced the functionality of the central structures (Legislative Council, Executive Council, Council of Ministers) to consultations and approval of the governor's decisions. Even despite the constant increase in the number of these councils, the imperial authorities effectively manipulated the electoral system, preventing any of the three main ethnic groups (Europeans, Indians, Africans) from actually governing the colony until the end of the colonial period. The decisions of the central government were implemented by the relevant departments (health, law and order, etc.). The homogeneity of the nomenclature guaranteed the coherence of the work of the entire administrative apparatus.

Cities

As the Europeans penetrated deeper into the country, they founded settlements, many of which later turned into full-fledged policies. In 27 years (1903 to 1930), 77 new settlements appeared on the colony's map. The closest term to us reflecting their essence is an urban—type settlement. The boundaries of these territorial units were designated in a peculiar way, based on local realities. For example, Kisumu ended further 2.5 miles from the local collector's office. The attributes of a full-fledged city were usually the village committee, magistrate, judge and clerk^{[6, p. 181]}.

In the early years, municipalities were almost the only source of local power. They issued their own regulatory documents (in particular, Mombasa had its own set of city rules) and could even set the rates of local taxes, fees, regular and irregular payments. For example, in accordance with the "Ordinance on Fees and Conservation of Nature" of 1908 ("The Township Fees and Conservancy Ordinance 1908"), it was possible to form virtually any basis for fees for city government. Meanwhile, there was no chaos on the ground, the system was complex, but manageable^{[6, p. 182]}.

The city authorities quickly realized that the local tax base was completely insufficient for full-fledged development, subsidies from the center were required. The colony's leadership, in turn, took care of the systematization of local authorities to control the state of affairs and the expenditure of allocated funds. In the second half of the 1920s, a series of clarifying documents was published, including the "Resolution on Municipalities" of 1928 ("The Local Government (Municipalities) Ordinance 1928"), which introduced the gradation of settlements according to the presence of local authorities (fully elected city council, municipal council, city "A", city "B") and it is recorded that local budgets are half formed by grants from the center, and the rest is obtained by various types of local taxes^{[6, p. 183-184]}. 

Self-government has developed in different ways. In particular, Nairobi became the first city to launch a full-fledged city council. By the turn of the 1920s and 1930s, Mombasa had only a municipal council. Kisumu was transferred from category "B" to category "A" in 1930, which made it possible to keep its own accounts, and in 1941 it received the right (the sixth in Kenya) to have a municipal council. Of course, all the members of the municipal authorities were Europeans (with minor inclusions of South Asians). The question of the participation of Africans in these structures was not raised until the 1950s. Even small indigenous settlements were under the leadership of "committees" or "boards" consisting of appointed officials^{[6, p. 184]}.

The 1920s in Kenya were a period of development of local government legislation and the introduction of official rules and regulations related to urban planning. In 1919, the first "Town Planning Ordinance" was published, which in 1931 was supplemented by the "Town Planning and Development Ordinance 1931". East Africa lagged somewhat behind the general imperial trends in this regard, similar decisions were made for England in 1925, for New Zealand in 1926, and for Australia in 1928, respectively. Cities developed and their appearance changed. In Nairobi, for example, several planning schemes have been consistently implemented.

The most favorable conditions in the cities were created for the life of Kenyans of European origin, if possible, then more or less tolerable - Indians, which will have to - Africans, respectively. The justification for dividing cities into closed quarters was usually easily obtained by the authorities through the medical service, whose representatives saw only segregation as salvation from the spread of infectious diseases (including plague and malaria). Already in 1905, the Land Committee of the Protectorate, when founding towns and cities, strongly recommended differentiating citizens by race. In accordance with the adopted set of "City Rules" ("Townships (Public Health, Segregation of Races) Rules"), the governor was given the authority to reserve land for land use and construction for residential areas for Europeans and Indians, places of residence of workers from South Asia, the African quarter, a commercial area (market) for businessmen from Europe and Asia (but not for local residents) and open free space (in case of potential expansion of the city)^{[6, p. 185-186]}. 

Kisumu was the first and in many ways an exemplary settlement where ethnic segregation was introduced initially and brought to a logical conclusion in a short period of time. By 1907, about 5-6 thousand people lived in Kisumu. Of these, about 30 were Europeans, 600 were Indians, and the rest were Africans, respectively. The townspeople of European origin lived on a hill overlooking the island. Victoria. The African police were stationed nearby. South Asians lived mainly around the bazaar in corrugated iron shacks, in terrible unsanitary conditions. The sites for the future expansion of the area assumed a fairly high population density (about 100 people per acre), while the development plan for this area did not mention any water supply, sewerage, or even public latrines.

 In 1904, the Kisumu Township Rules were adopted. By 1926, they had been clarified, revised and supplemented at least 37 times. Several main urban areas were identified. District "A", where government offices were located, was intended for the residence of citizens of European origin. There were spacious streets, stone bungalows, and a lot of open space. Zone "B" was allocated to representatives of South Asia. Africans were forbidden to stay in these two zones, except in the status of a tenant, servant, employee or officially registered dependent. Individual houses and neighborhoods of Indians and Europeans could arise around the railway station as one of the centers of business activity. Zone "C" was reserved exclusively for local residents and was called the "native quarter", it had separate zones for each ethnic group (Arabs, Nubians, Ganda, etc.). Africans were strictly forbidden to spend the night outside their quarter^{[6, p. 186-187]}.

The main employer (the railway company), as a rule, housed workers of African and Indian origin in one-room frame barracks, the so-called "landhies". Naturally, there was no talk about any benefits of civilization (water, electricity, etc.). These structures consisted of rows of tiny rooms (about nine square feet each), where two men and two women usually lived. The construction of one-room buildings was also practiced, where 30-40 people stayed (with an estimated number of residents of no more than 20). This state of affairs persisted almost until the end of the colonial era. Although formally the rules of urban development implied a norm of 30 square feet of space and 350 cubic feet of free air space per person with a minimum living room area of 100 square feet (approximately 16 square meters)^{[6, p. 187-188]}. 

   The urban environment of colonial Kenya had many similarities with the way life was organized in South Africa during the apartheid era. Racial and ethnic segregation served as the conceptual basis of urban planning. Cities and large towns were governed by Europeans, and the interests of other population groups were taken into account on a residual basis.  

Field management

Since 1895, when Kenya was divided into provinces, and provinces, in turn, into districts. Provinces were governed by "provincial commissioners" ("provincial commissioner"), districts by "district commissioners" ("district commissioner"), appointed from among officials, respectively. In the districts, specific settlements were allocated, which were under the jurisdiction of the heads appointed by the administration, called "chiefs" for short.  The practice of their appointment was sanctioned by the "Decree on the Management of Indigenous People" of 1902 ("1902 Native Authority Ordinance"). This administrative system, implemented in relation to indigenous people, did not fundamentally change until the end of the colonial regime^{[7, p. 373]}.

The chiefs were the lower layer of the management system and allowed to significantly save money on its maintenance. In the first two decades of the colonial regime, when Africans were obliged to pay taxes, give their lands to European farmers, carry out many duties, forcibly follow a completely different culture, learn a new language, there was active opposition to the colonialists. The British were not discerning in the means of suppressing discontent, the so-called "pacification expeditions" were regular, during which the homes of Kenyans resisting the new government were burned, crops were destroyed, and cattle were confiscated. The leaders in this situation served as the faithful support of the regime. The candidates were attracted by privileges, a stable salary, and the opportunity to solve their personal problems. There was no shortage of people willing to take up such a position ^{[7, p. 371-373]}.

The paradox of the situation was that even the institution of chiefs in itself became an innovation for the natives, perceived with hostility. There were no "leaders" in the European sense among the tribes and nationalities of pre-colonial Kenya. The authorities of the Kenyans were the councils of elders - "kiama" ("ciama"). Every major settlement had such a council to deal with local issues. At the local level, there were sub-clan councils - "mbari" ("mbari"), dealing with issues of their own level, and even higher were subdistrict and district councils. These bodies administered justice and organized the daily life of the villages. The councils consisted of representatives, "athamaki", who, being specialists in various fields (politics, ceremonial rites, court cases, etc.), actually coordinated the work of these structures. And there was no place for leaders here ^{[7, p. 373]}.

Another problem was that the area of the settlements was very different, geographically they could be separated on two sides of the same mountain range, for example. The chiefs were often physically unable to control the territory formally under their control. The administrative units (settlements, districts, districts) introduced by the British authorities were far from the real tribal structure, which by the time of the arrival of the colonialists was much more complicated than it seemed from the outside. For each particular community, it could be at a different level of development, continuing to evolve constantly. By 1900, in the most general form among the Kikuyu, for example, the three-part structure was the most common. The grassroots element was a group that represented a nuclear or extended (with immediate relatives) family. Several such groups, united by a common origin (immediate and distant relatives) and place of residence, formed the clan, "moherega" ("moherega"). Representatives of several clans formed the "riika", a council that consisted of the oldest and most respected members of the community who had undergone the rite of initiation (circumcision). The same person, of course, could belong to several groups at the same time, but at the same time his social status, rights and duties varied depending on the internal hierarchy of each group^{[8, p. 587]}. Several clans united into sub-clans, which could number from several hundred to several thousand people, respectively. The number of settlements and the area of residence of the subclans was extremely different.

The chiefs were entrusted with duties that had never been present before in tribal councils, including tax collection, construction of bridges and roads, supply of recruits to the armed forces (and workers to white farmers), law enforcement. Therefore, representatives of the tribal councils among the first leaders practically did not meet, it was shameful and fraught with friction with relatives. The leaders were people who, as a rule, did not have a high social status and did not enjoy any authority in traditional society. Applicants, first of all, were required to be diligent and loyal to the colonial administration, therefore, among the people who held these posts at first, it was possible to find porters, guides, interpreters, soldiers, policemen, etc. Even an out-of-the-ordinary case of appointing a medicine man as the head of the settlement was recorded ^{[7, p. 374-375]}.

The chiefs were vested with full authority and were responsible only to the district commissioners. There was no system of checks and balances. Each chief acquired a team of assistants, commonly known as "tribal retainers" or "spearmen". At the same time, the salary (also, by the way, a complete nonsense for the traditional management system) of the chiefs was extremely meager (at the lower rate of a part–time colonial employee) - from 13 to 100 rupees per month (approximately from 5 to 30 US dollars). The salaries of the chiefs were brought close to the full–fledged rate of full-time administration staff only in 1939. Of course, all this led to numerous violations, abuses, sometimes outright bullying and crimes of the leaders (cattle rustling, theft of wives, beatings, confiscation of property, fines, etc.) in relation to the local population. The inner circle of the leaders, "nyama" ("njama"), usually consisting of their peers and hangers-on, often accumulated scoundrels from all over the neighborhood and transformed into a real organized criminal group, terrifying many villages. Nyama members could stay overnight and live in any house in any village indefinitely, the owners of the shelter had to feed them and keep the fire burning at night while these bandits deigned to rest ^{[7, p. 375-376]}. 

The colonial administration reacted to the arbitrariness of the leaders, they were fined. In 1908-1912, there was a wave of dismissals of leaders from the first sets. However, such measures were rare and exceptional. The place of the dismissed was occupied by quite comparable characters. The situation looked hopeless, especially in the 1910s.

By the 1920s, the "childhood illnesses" of the Institute of leaders gradually began to be overcome. The spread of education among the natives contributed to the growth of civic consciousness. The leaders themselves began to send children not only to the nearest schools, but even to study abroad. After the First World War, the authorities tightened control over the leaders, began to appoint more educated and qualified candidates to these positions. In 1925, the creation of "Councils of Indigenous People" ("Local Native Council") was authorized, which shared powers with the chiefs. Kenyans elected their own representatives to these authorities. A powerful counterweight to the arbitrariness of the leaders was the nascent Kenyan intelligentsia and public (in fact, quasi-political) organizations, including the Kikuyu Association, the Young Kikuyu Association, the East African Association, the Association Young Kavirondo Association, Kikuyu Central Association, Kavirondo Taxpayers Welfare Association, Native Catholic Union, etc.^{[7, p. 384-385]}

As we can see, in the case of local authorities, the colonial administration tried (albeit not always immediately) to build a balanced system, without concentrating power and authority in any one hand. Kinks in the field were eliminated as needed. Taking into account the fact that before the British, self-government in the European representation in Kenya did not exist at all, the British achieved undoubted success in this direction by the 1930s. 

Lawmaking

The colonial administration was based on laws. Only in the period from 1920 to 1940, on average, at least one act, resolution or amendment to existing documents was adopted weekly. All of them were developed and approved by persons of European origin, members of various authorities, with minor participation of Indians^{[6, p. 176-178]}.

The tone of legislative activity on the outskirts of the Empire was set by graduates of two of the oldest universities in the metropolis – Oxford and Cambridge. Participation in the drafting of laws in the colonies and dominions was considered a good start for a successful legal and political career. At the same time, it was considered normal practice to simply borrow legislation that had already been implemented in other parts of the Crown's possessions. In relation to Kenya, it was most often about the regulatory framework of British India^{[6, p. 178]}.

One of the very first acts regulating the lives of local residents related to the registration of Kenyans, relations with employers and the problem of vagrancy. The key factor here was the desire of the authorities to control the movement of workers and maintain stability in the labor market. In 1900, the "Native Passes Regulations 1900" came into force, and in 1903, a separate decree obliging African men to have a special permit to leave the area (reservation) of residence. In 1915, through the adoption of the "Decree on the Registration of Indigenous People" ("Native Registration of Natives Ordinance 1915"), the kipande pass system was introduced. This document contained basic personal data, fingerprints and work experience. The humiliating (and frankly inconvenient) nature of this innovation for local residents was not only that such a practice severely limited their mobility, but also that they had to carry a kippand with them at all times (around their neck, in a special case). Since 1922, all men outside the official boundaries of reservations were required to have a kipande. During the First World War, this approach helped solve the problem of recruiting Kenyans into the Imperial army^{[6, p. 179]}.

In the period from 1908 to 1930, six regulations came into force concerning the issue of vagrancy, which most often meant the usual movement of the local population. As a result, by the early 1930s, any native who was outside the reservation without a kipande could be assigned the status of a vagrant, which often meant imprisonment. In this respect, the colony's legislation differed little from European practice. Underage vagrants were recommended to be forcibly returned to their native places. In 1947, the introduction of a practice was discussed in which any African who did not have a permanent job for three months was automatically recognized as a vagrant and was punished^{[6, p. 180]}.

Interaction with domestic workers was regulated by the "Masters and Servants Ordinance" of 1906 ("Master and Servants Ordinance 1906"), which was based on traditional English law. The interests of the servants were not actually taken into account here. In the metropolis, the "Employers and Workers Act" of 1875 ("Employers and Workmen Act 1875") recognized the right of workers to collective representation. For colonies in Africa, Australia and the Caribbean, more archaic and harsh legislation was applied, including physical punishment (flogging) of servants. In 1919, a labor inspectorate was established in Kenya under the "Department of Indigenous Affairs" ("Department of Native Affairs"), which was charged with preventing abuses in this area^{[6, p. 179-180]}.

 Urban life was determined by the relevant regulations ("Townships Ordinances"). The first such decision was made in 1903 ("Townships Ordinance of 1903"), and in total more than 30 such documents were adopted during the period of colonial rule. Land policy was closely linked with the development of towns and cities. According to the "Crown Lands Ordinance" of 1902 ("Crown Lands Ordinance 1902"), vacant lands or territories that the authorities considered vacant due to the departure (for various reasons) of local residents became Crown lands and could be transferred to European settlers. By 1914, almost 5 million acres of land had passed into the possession of European farmers and nobility from the metropolis, and by 1963 – more than 7 million acres, respectively. Although technically it was a 999-year lease. Local residents were not granted private ownership of land until 1959, when the "Law on Registration of Indigenous Lands" ("Native Lands Registration Ordinance of 1959") came into force ^{[6, p. 191]}.

The inequality of Africans with Kenyans was legislated in almost all areas. The Racial Segregation Act of 1918 (1918 "Segregation of Races Act" 1918), the Municipal Representation Ordinance of 1919 ("Municipal Corporation Ordinance" 1919), the Electoral Law of 1919 ("Electoral Representation Ordinance" 1919) effectively deprived the local population (and South Asians) of the right to claim equal voting rights with Europeans. Freedom of movement was also restricted, including for sanitary reasons. From 1900 to 1913, a series of decisions were made in this area, where the key preventive measures were restrictions on the movement of Indians and Africans, but not Europeans (they were a priori recognized as having a higher level of personal and public hygiene). The most significant documents include the decrees on the plague of 1902, on infectious diseases of 1903, on sleeping sickness of 1903, on plague and cholera of 1907, on vaccination of 1912, on malaria of 1912, and, finally, on the restriction of immigration of 1913. Natives for violating these rules could be sentenced to imprisonment for up to one month^{[9, p. 82]}.

The personal lives of the colonized peoples were not ignored. The "East African Marriage Ordinance" of 1902 ("1902 East African Marriage Ordinance") ordered the local population to give preference to monogamous marriages and even granted women the right to inherit marital property, but in fact the life of the absolute majority of the fair sex in Kenya was in strict accordance with traditional rules and norms. A kind of outlet for Kenyan women was the field of obstetrics and maternity care, where they could gain some public authority^[10].   

Even in relation to the media, their own rules have been introduced. According to the "Decree on Books and Newspapers" of 1906 ("Book and Newspaper Ordinance of 1906"), all publications had to be registered, and each publication had to contain output data (title, number, name and address of the owner, average annual circulation). Although, to do justice to the colonial authorities, censorship in the modern sense was not introduced in Kenya until the mid-1950s.^{[11, p. 166]}

Some issues in Kenya were resolved in accordance with customary law, and some on the basis of European legislation (often slightly modified previously in other possessions of the Crown). In controversial moments, of course, British jurisdiction prevailed over local law and even regulations issued by the colonial authorities. This state of affairs was recorded in the "East African Decree on the Council" of 1902 ("The East Africa Order in Council of 1902") and did not undergo any significant changes until the end of the colonial era^{[12, p. 501-502]}.

The legal practice of colonial Kenya included some atavisms. In the metropolis (England and Wells), corporal punishment was abolished in 1948. It would be logical to expect that the colonies would follow this positive example. However, in Kenya, the development of the punishment system has rather gone down the path of regression. For minor offenses, light punishments were usually applied: solitary confinement, reduced diet, reprimand, deprivation of privileges. Serious crimes (rebellion, disobedience to the authorities, attacks on prison staff, etc.) could entail the same consequences, however, according to the "Regulations on Detained Persons" 1954 ("Emergency (Detained Persons) Regulations 1954"), or rather paragraph 17 of this document, it could be a real authorized by law beatings – up to 12 strokes with a stick (in practice, batons, whips, etc. were used). On the ground, police and army units did not disdain ordinary terror (burning houses, property, punishments in the form of electric shocks, etc.). Theoretically, of course, every detained or tortured Kenyan could challenge the decision of the authorities and file a complaint about the arbitrariness of the authorities in the name of the governor, but in practice this was an extremely unlikely scenario^{[12, p. 505-506]}.

As a result, a three-stage structure of the legislative framework has developed. For the indigenous population, it was about their traditional law, "local law and custom" ("native law and custom"). Kenyans were allowed to live in accordance with tribal ideas of good and evil only if they did not contradict the acts and regulations that were applied by Europeans to Africans themselves. European settlers and South Asians lived under legislation largely borrowed from British India, and where it was not applicable, the "Common and Statutory law of England" was used. The Muslim population observed the Islamic laws prevalent in the region since the time of the Sultanate of Zanzibar. This approach corresponded to the principles of segregation of the colony's population by race and was recognized by the authorities as quite effective for management. 

Law enforcement agencies

The origin of law enforcement structures in Kenya dates back to 1887, when an East African company hired several Indians to protect its property on Mombasa Island. All the first fundamental documents in this field, including the Police Act, the Penal Code, and the Criminal Procedure Act, were borrowed from British India. During the construction of the Ugandan Railway, the number of police was significantly increased, and Africans began to be involved in the service. The reform of 1903-1904 united the railway and city police, the post of inspector general was introduced, district commissioners were able to recruit locally. All paperwork was done by Indians (usually in Urdu), European employees avoided paperwork. As a result, the place of the "middle level" in the service hierarchy was fixed for police officers of South Asian origin, which greatly reduced the career prospects of Africans^{[13, p. 404-405]}.

By the beginning of the 20th century, the police in Kenya was divided into central and local. The first was formed by the European authorities and controlled the order in large cities. South Asians and Africans served in it. This was one of the ways to instill in the local population the values and norms of Western civilization, since in order to successfully advance through the ranks, native personnel had to meet the standards adopted in Great Britain as much as possible. The local police, created by local authorities, consisted mainly of Kenyans and solved issues "on the ground" (domestic crime, disputes over pastures and arable land, etc.)^{[13, p. 402-403]}. 

The police service was not popular among the British. In 1906, all police officers in, for example, Nairobi, were either Indian or African. Even by the end of the 1920s, in 1927, the administrative (clerical) staff of the Metropolitan Police consisted of only four Europeans with one African and 54 four employees of South Asian origin. By 1945, there were 16 Europeans, and 116 Indians. A year later, the number of European employees decreased to 12, while Indians became 123. Indian policemen coped with field work worse than Europeans, but noticeably better than Africans, although the latter numerically dominated the structure. In particular, in 1938, 28 officers and 113 inspectors were of British origin, 32 inspectors and 3 sergeants were of Indian origin, 5 inspectors and 1,906 sergeants and constables were of African origin, and in 1949 84 officers and 269 inspectors, 41 inspectors and 22 sergeants, 115 inspectors and 5,542 sergeants and constables, accordingly. Thus, we see the dynamics of the absolute and relative growth of local personnel in the Kenyan police. But at the same time, inequality in salary levels persisted, police officers of European origin in the same positions received higher salaries^{[13, p. 406-407]}.

The local police were recruited at local recruitment points, and the initial (very superficial) training of the young recruits took place there. There was also a special training unit ("Police Training Depot") in Nairobi, where recruits took six-month courses, the content of which was mainly limited to familiarization with European standards of official work. Since the mid-1920s, the Kenyan police have relieved units of the Royal African Rifles of the duty to maintain order on the Kenyan-Ethiopian border.

The practice of training African police officers showed that, in the opinion of the colonial authorities, it was easier to train them, because, like children, they perceived information better and changed faster than Indian cadres, who were compared with "half grown men" ("half grown man"). The problem of high dropout rates (up to 60%) and early retirement (up to half of Kenyans left the service in the first five years) was solved by recruiting new personnel. The Africans themselves explained this by low salaries (for constables from the local population, salaries could not rise for decades), the fact that they could not get along with new standards and norms of life, homesickness and relatives, a feeling of fatigue ("choka" in Swahili). They were also demotivated by the fact that early retirement did not provide a basis for receiving a pension^{[13, p. 408-410]}.

Ethnic differences, of course, also played a role in the organization of the Kenyan police. It quickly became clear that militant tribes are more suitable for law enforcement activities. In addition, other things being equal, preference was given to illiterate recruits, they more often showed the qualities necessary for difficult conditions of service – responsibility, endurance, discipline, were much less demanding of the salary.  Thus, Luo, Kipsigi, Nandi and Kamba were mostly represented in the local police. Kikuyu hardly served in the police. For example, in 1926, Kikuyu among police officers was only 5% (the total share in the country's population was 20%), luo – 26% (the share in the country was 14%), kamba – 24% (12%), kipsigi – 5% (3%), Nandi – 3% (2%), respectively. By 1953, the proportion between the tribes had changed slightly, Kikuyu – 2%, Luo – 11%, Kabma – 18%, Kipsigi – 8%, Nandi – 10%, respectively. The tribes with the most educated young people supplied the police with extremely few personnel ^{[13, p. 408-411]}.

Up to the period of independence, the judicial corps of colonial Kenya consisted of people of European descent (with the exception of one representative of the Indian community). The manageability, predictability and high qualifications of the servants of Themis were guaranteed, among other things (as in the case of the managerial nomenclature), by the uniformity of their origin and education. 56% of the judges of the Supreme Court of Kenya, nine of the 13 judges of the Court of Appeal of East Africa, four of the five chief Judges of Kenya studied either at Oxford or Cambridge.  Due to the small number of judges, each of them became a fairly well-known figure in the colony. It is characteristic that obvious racial discrimination in the appointment of judges has almost never found its continuation during the proceedings on the merits and sentencing. Indians and Africans could, by and large, count on the impartiality and absence of corruption in the colonial courts. Otherwise, it would mean an inevitable decrease in the competence of judges and undermining confidence in the imperial government^{[14, p. 46-47]}.

South Asians certainly dominated among private lawyers in Kenya. Given the racial structure of the colony's population and the very widespread perception that Africans, in principle, do not understand entire branches of knowledge (banking, finance, law, exact sciences), it was extremely difficult for local residents to make a career in this field. The closeness of the legal profession for Kenyans was ensured by the caste of Indian society, where this profession (in commercial matters very profitable), as a rule, was personified again with people from South Asian ethno-religious groups who had achieved success in business. It was much more convenient to conduct business with your own relatives as lawyers. The social life of South Asians for local residents was a "closed cocoon" ^{[14, p. 41-45]}.

The Colonial Legal Service in Kenya was a completely unique authority, which was usually formed from professional lawyers and barristers (lawyers in Great Britain and Commonwealth countries), incorruptible, highly competent, with a developed sense of self-esteem. The vast majority of them were graduates of the metropolitan public schools, and later of Oxford or Cambridge University. Such an education guaranteed rapid career advancement. As a rule, it was possible to apply for ordinary positions in the legal service of the colony after three or four years of work at the bar association in the metropolis^{[14, p. 46-47]}.

The situation with the lawyers of the local spill, of course, left much to be desired. Even by the 1950s, there were practically no specialists of native origin in East Africa. West Africa looked much better in this regard, in Nigeria, for example, there were at least 800 such personnel (in Sierra Leone - up to 300, respectively). According to the memoirs of lawyer Satish Gautama, who began practice in 1942, most of the cases in the colony were quite monotonous, interesting ones were extremely rare. It usually revolved around three factors–land, women, and booze.  In the first 25 years, he was involved in approximately 4,000 murder cases, 1,000 theft cases and approximately 500 rapes, respectively. The usual timing of crimes included alcohol consumption, then the search for adventures, and everything ended, as a rule, with some kind of violent crime^{[14, p. 49-52]}.

Crime

The colonial administration's control of the situation in cities and rural areas also implied the maintenance of law and order. In addition to the usual domestic crime, the authorities had to deal with specific crimes that were not widely represented in the metropolis and other parts of the Empire. The servants of the law did not always win in this confrontation.

Land policy, the creation of reservations, coupled with the development of large agglomerations and the local labor market, have led to the spread of vagrancy in Kenya, including among minors. Attention was paid to this problem very closely, because it generated an environment favorable for the development of crime. In accordance with the Vagrancy Ordinance of 1920 (Vagrancy Ordinance of 1920), the main criterion for distinguishing vagrants from the general mass of the urban population was the lack of permanent housing. Temporary shelters (veranda, outbuildings, utility room, car, etc.) could not act as a permanent place of residence for the poorest segments of the population. Adult vagrants were usually sentenced to arrest and forced labor, young homeless people, as a rule, tried to repatriate to rural areas, to relatives, to the bosom of traditional values in order to reduce, as it was then believed, the harmful influence of urban life on fragile minds. In 1932 alone, more than 1,000 homeless people were detained in Nairobi (they were kept in overcrowded cells beyond measure)^{[15, p. 48-49]}.

The "Crime Committee", established in 1932 in Nairobi, including representatives of the police, colonial and local authorities, noted that of the three potential sources of crime – teenagers, professional repeat offenders and vagrants, the former are the most serious problem, including because that they serve as a potential personnel base for the second and third. In the early 1930s, there were about 3.4 thousand African minors in the Kenyan capital (most of them aged 10 to 15 years), of whom about a third were without parental control, and 2.9 thousand did not have a permanent source of livelihood. No more than 600 boys and 150 girls attended educational institutions, mainly at church missions^{[15, p. 49]}.

In 1938, two specialized structures were organized - the "Juvenile Crime Committee" and the "Committee for the Employment of Minors" ("Employment of Juveniles Committe"), which systematically dealt with the problem of African street children in Nairobi. The members of these committees exercised public control over the fulfillment of the requirements of the "Juvenile Ordinance" of 1934 ("Juveniles Ordinance 1934"), including the prohibition of keeping minors (under 16 years old) and adult criminals together, as well as a veto on the imprisonment of the former, if other methods of punishment are available (caning, sending to a specialized school, repatriation to rural areas to relatives)^{[15, p. 49]}.

Despite all the efforts of the authorities, the problem of vagrancy remained relevant until the end of the colonial period. The rapid growth of the population with the rapid pace of urbanization has negated most of the current and preventive measures aimed at combating this social evil.

The systematic use of kata (a light drug of plant origin) by the local population also greatly worried the colonial administration. The first measures to restrict it date back to 1934, when riots in Meru communities forced the local native council to take an official decision to restrict kata for young people. This was explained by the fact that under its influence, young people become uncontrollable and prone to aggression. This measure was more a formality than an effective tool, and therefore, in the late 1930s, European officials and doctors actively joined the fight against cat. It was immediately discovered that cat acts differently on different ethnic groups. If the harm from eating kata was noticeable for farmers, but relatively acceptable, then for nomadic pastoralists (including Somalis), chewing the leaves of this plant becomes a real disaster. The mental health of Somalis under the influence of this stimulant deteriorated sharply, making them unsuitable for military and police service, they lost touch with reality, staying in the "dream world", became lazy and apathetic ^{[16, p. 383-385]}.

Meanwhile, the scale of production and trade in cotton increased year by year. One of the centers for the sale of kata was the city of Isiolo, where only in 1940 at least 100 bags of kata left the shelves daily, the revenue reached 1 thousand pounds per month. At the end of 1940, the free circulation of kata was banned, but already in 1942 (after the Allied victory in Ethiopia) the ban was lifted. At the same time, the smuggling of kata arose and rapidly developed, which, firstly, without reducing demand, contributed to an increase in the price of this drug (on average 2-3 times), and secondly, despite radical measures (destruction of the found goods), the volume of sales of kata did not decrease, since in providing and covering A huge number of African employees and police officers took part in the illegal shipments. In the second half of the 1940s, the authorities finally lifted all restrictions concerning kata, in fact, bringing everything related to it into the legal field^{[16, p. 383-385]}.

The practice of cattle theft, which was an absolute norm among the local pastoral population, organically integrated into the centuries-old way of life, looked very outrageous for the authorities and European settlers. The most active participants in this process were the Maasai and Kalenjin living in the Rift Valley and the western part of the country. For young people from these nationalities, cattle rustling was a kind of sport. At the same time, the theft of livestock from tribesmen was strictly prohibited, strongly condemned and condemned. Similar actions against outsiders (white farmers and other nationalities) were not prohibited ^{[17, p. 399-402]}.

The relevant terminology clearly distinguished these acts. A large-scale organized raid on outsiders, for example, at Kalenjin, was called "ngel" ("ngel") and was planned in advance. The intermediate and main stages of the transfer and sale of loot were highlighted, with distracting maneuvers, the involvement of dozens (sometimes hundreds) of participants, a clear distribution of roles, the preliminary approval of spiritual leaders and the consent of elders. The possible retaliatory actions of the injured party were perceived as an acceptable risk, only increasing the prestige of this kind of occupation. The theft of livestock from their neighbors was called in a completely different way ("chorset ap tuka"), it happened extremely rarely, it was characterized by spontaneity, the initiators of such, as a rule, secret actions were ostracized. This continued for many centuries, until the British Empire came to the region, a new force with completely different ideas about the property complex, permissible and prohibited norms of behavior, as well as much greater organizational resources to protect the interests of its citizens and subjects^{[17, p. 399-402]}. 

At first, from 1904-1905, when European settlers began to arrive in the Rift Valley, due to their small numbers, they seemed to be a very accessible target for cattle theft for local tribes. The boundaries between land holdings and reservations were not clearly marked everywhere, and the colonial administration could not allocate sufficient forces to maintain control. 1918 and 1919 were marked by two major successful Nandi raids on farmers. However, after the end of the First World War, by the turn of the 1910s and 1920s, the British authorities began to monitor the situation more closely, several punitive actions were carried out, including the shooting of several elders, which eventually reduced the activity of kidnappers and even contributed to a change in theft tactics. Mixing of cattle belonging to Europeans and Africans was practiced. Reservations and forest reserves could now act as transshipment points, including for the resale of prey to Uganda, the number of heads stolen at a time was reduced (no more than a dozen animals were tried to steal), so that it was easier to hide their tracks^{[17, p. 404]}.

To combat this type of crime, the British authorities used not only one-time punitive actions, but also developed appropriate legislation that takes into account regional specifics and clearly fixes penalties for such actions. The "Collective Punishment Ordinance" of 1909 ("Collective Punishment Ordinance 1909") implied that if local residents helped conceal stolen goods or obstructed the investigation of a crime, they could be prosecuted, up to imprisonment. The "Decree on the theft of livestock and products" of 1913 ("Stock and ProduceTheft Ordinance 1913") implied punishment in the form of five years in prison and payment of a fine many times exceeding the value of stolen movable property. If the convicted person was unable to pay the full amount, the fine could be distributed to his family, relatives and even neighbors. These two documents actually defined the maximum level of punishment for cattle rustlers, which is clearly insufficient and incomplete for the reason that within the African tribes themselves such events were not only not condemned, but were considered with universal tacit consent an honorable occupation worthy of the memory of their ancestors. It was not possible to overcome this phenomenon.  Every year, until the beginning of the country's independence period, several thousand such crimes were consistently recorded (in 1955, for example, 1,578 cases, in 1962 - 4,243 cases, respectively)^{[17, p. 415]}.

The situation was no easier in the field of combating illegal activities of a non-domestic, but state nature, in particular, with the anti-colonial movement and the Mau Mau uprising of 1953-1955. By the turn of the 1940s-1950s, almost all public activity (including, at first, the exclusively peaceful Mau Mau movement) Kenyans on the ground were perceived as subversive.

In 1950 alone, about 120 Kenyan activists were convicted and sent to prison. However, these punitive measures only intensified the ferment and accelerated the onset of full-scale riots. Control over the situation was finally lost in the summer of 1952, when whole groups of young people began to gather on the outskirts of reservations, refusing to serve and perform work. The process of self-organization of Kenyans began, which by 1953 led to the formation of fully capable resistance units ^{[3, p. 166-171]}.

On the eve and during the Mau Mau uprising, the colonial administration actively resorted to the imprisonment of those accused of disobeying the authorities in concentration camps. In total, from 1953 to 1960, at least 19 camps were opened for such a contingent, through which, according to various estimates, from 80 thousand to 150 thousand detainees passed through a simplified procedure (without trial and investigation) ^{[13, p. 491-493]}. According to other sources, by the end of the 1950s, the number of camps was about 100, and the number of persons held there was at least 80 thousand people^{[18, p. 25]}.

The "Mau Mau" approach to correcting detained participants (or accused of participating) was based on the "concept of rehabilitation". It assumed the division of prisoners into "blacks" ("black"), held in very strict conditions in remote camps, and "whites" ("white"), loyal prisoners who embarked on the path of correction, with a very lenient regime of detention. As a result of systematic coercion and daily manual activities in the camps, the rebels and their supporters had to transform into progressive citizens. Regular beatings and torture were the norm in such institutions^{[18, p. 26]}.

Kenyans countered this pressure from the authorities with their own methods. The Mau Mau participants took the oath of allegiance to the movement using occult practices, unnatural contacts with animals and the use of substances of questionable content (blood, earth, etc.)^{[19, p. 37]}. The natives plotted all sorts of intrigues and minor sabotage to officials, missionaries, farmers, migrants from South Asia, the police and loyalists from among the tribal elite. Such activities could not bring significant harm to the colonial authorities, but the authorities were forced to strengthen control and establish close surveillance of the area, which inevitably diverted the resources of the police and administration^{[19, p. 353-363]}.

The authorities also practiced "screening", that is, a mass preventive check of the population to identify elements sympathetic to the uprising, to suppress the activities of the underground, to detain activists and accomplices of the Mau Mau. The local administration, with the support of military units, Kenyan police reservists and special forces units ("Special Branch"), cordoned off unreliable settlements (sometimes entire districts) and carried out total arrests followed by biased interrogations of detainees. In the camps, "dilution" was used, a technique in which groups of persistent prisoners were diluted by loyal prisoners (usually in the proportion of 1 to 10), who persuaded the resisters (not always only verbally) to cooperate with the administration ^{[12, p. 510-520]}.

The fight against crime in colonial Kenya was going on with varying success. The police and the courts dealt with domestic crime quite effectively. Violations of law and order related to local specifics, traditions and anti-colonial struggle were more problematic and required the involvement of more people and resources. However, in general, the colonial authorities were able to achieve relative order and public safety in populated areas, violent atrocities were rare, and in relation to Europeans they were generally an exception.

Conclusion

The colonial system of government was built up in Kenya during the 1900s and 1920s, acquiring features of completeness in the main institutions by the 1930s. Before the arrival of the British Empire, there was no civilizational basis in this region, assuming the presence of state entities. The key authorities were created by the colonialists virtually from scratch.

The leading role at all levels of the administrative structure belonged to people of European origin. Any independent political representation of the other two ethnic groups (Indians and Africans), working outside the framework created by the central government, was not intended. The full power in the colony actually belonged to the governor, who unconditionally pursued the policy of the metropolis. This state of affairs was consolidated by a cultivated ideological paradigm that presupposes the superiority of the British and Europeans in general in all spheres of society, including management.

Due to the lack of personnel in the field, in particular, local specialists were actively used in the formation of the police and self-government bodies (through the introduction of the institute of chiefs). In the judicial, legal and legislative spheres, it was practiced to borrow documents and proven solutions from British India. The strength and coherence of the work of the state mechanism was ensured by the uniformity of the composition of the nomenclature.

The management of the colony implied the maintenance of law and order. The fight against domestic crime was successful. The elimination of specific crimes caused by local specifics (vagrancy, cattle theft, the use of kata, anti–colonial activities) was carried out slowly, with great difficulties and was not brought to its logical end, in a number of directions it was discontinued due to futility.

By the time of independence in 1963, the newly-minted Kenyan authorities inherited a completely efficient system of government bodies from the colonial regime. The achievements of the British in this area, taking into account the initial data and the permanent lack of resources in the colony, look significant and indisputable.