UK must give justice to Agnes Wanjiru’s family

I can bet the life of my beloved cat that if it wasn't for the exposé from a whistleblower in the Sunday Times of London, the tragic story of Agnes Wanjiru would have remained buried in the archives of "unsolved deaths" for all time. 

Therefore, don't take the sudden contrition shown by British and Kenyan authorities to have the 2012 murder of the 21-year-old girl resolved to be genuine. Nah. They had not expected to be exposed. UK and Kenyan officials at the time were complicit in a cover-up. 

The details are straightforward: On the night of March 31, 2012, Wanjiru joins a group of carousing British soldiers in a Nanyuki hotel bar. She's later taken to a room where she is stabbed and her body dumped in a septic tank. The whistleblower who spoke to the UK newspaper was among the party of drinking soldiers.

To cover his back, he reports the crime to his superiors at the British Army Training Unit in Kenya (Batuk) camp in Nanyuki. They hush it up. Not long afterward, all the soldiers who were partying with Wanjiru on the night she was murdered, including the actual killer(s), are flown home to the UK. 

In the Times account of the unnamed whistleblower, it was evident military and other official higher-ups in the UK were informed of the murder in Kenya. They, too, swept it under the carpet. No doubt, the UK High Commission in Nairobi had all the details. Its recent declamatory statements implying it was learning of the murder only from the Times story was hypocrisy at its Anglo-Saxon extreme. 

The discovery of Wanjiru's decomposing body in Nanyuki two months after she was killed was inadvertent. A hotel worker noticed a foul smell coming from the septic tank. There was now no way the police could be kept out. A post-mortem was conducted. But a toxicology report took more than a year to prepare.

Unpleasant controversies

Another year went by before crime scene photos were produced, never mind that they were taken the same day the body was discovered. Clearly, the investigation was being intentionally made to die. A very easy open-and-shut case had mysteriously gone cold. 

It took another five years to open an inquest. The magistrate firmly ruled that a murder had been committed. The inquest findings were served on the DPP and Attorney-General in November 2019 for action. None was forthcoming. Yet it was no secret who Wanjiru was with on the material night. The names were known. As was the fact that they had been based at the Batuk camp. 

For years, Batuk has been at the centre of many unpleasant controversies. Not just the drunken brawls the soldiers indulge in in Nanyuki bars. There have been the rape cases of local pastoral women (and minors) in Batuk's training fields in Laikipia and Samburu. Then the deaths and maimings of locals caused by unexploded ordnance carelessly left behind by the soldiers.

Whenever these bad things come to light, the British government is very reluctant to admit liability, or pay compensation. In one publicised instance (in 2003) when the UK was forced to pay, it doled out Sh450 million to 230 families who had lost relatives or whose family members suffered lifelong disabilities caused by those unexploded bombs. 

This money translated to about Sh2 million for each family. It looks like very good cash, but it's not. Converted to sterling pounds, it comes to about £13,000 per family. It's not much more than you'd have been fined last year for violating UK's Covid-19 self-isolation rules. 

Sovereign immunity

A most troubling aspect of Batuk's existence in this country is its ambiguous relationship with Kenyan law. Whether or not it is fully subject to Kenya's legal jurisdiction, as it should, has never been made explicit. When you ask British officials, they insist Batuk fully submits to Kenyan laws. Yet when any of the unit's British personnel are prosecuted locally, they vacillate on that crucial point. A situation where an entity, whether foreign, is stationed in Kenya yet is not subject to our legal jurisdiction is intolerable. 

From the beginning, Batuk supposedly enjoyed "sovereign immunity," meaning it could not be prosecuted under Kenyan laws, no matter what atrocities its soldiers committed. Over time, a more clearer demarcation was reached between the Kenyan and UK governments where local courts could hear certain criminal cases involving Batuk soldiers. However, civil cases were exempt. This issue of jurisdiction again came up in 2015 during talks between President Uhuru Kenyatta and Prime Minister David Cameron. 

Kenyan courts have not always been persuaded that this civil immunity is absolute. An example is a 2012 case where a Kenyan sued for compensation in a local court when his car got hit by a Batuk truck. Initially the case was dismissed owing to jurisdictional issues. Upon appeal, the High Court ruled it had jurisdiction over this case and ordered the appellant be compensated.

As late as last week, Batuk was citing "sovereign immunity" in a case where it has been sued for causing a fire in Lolldaiga in Laikipia that destroyed 12,000-acres, affecting 1,396 residents. 

Bottom line: Wanjiru's destitute family naturally expects — and deserves — compensation for the murder of their loved one. Especially in circumstances so cruel. This compensation must not be the measly pounds the UK buys off angry Samburu herdsmen with. It must match UK compensation rates in similar cases. 

There is an even more critical issue here. The Wanjiru family must get justice. Real justice. Her killers must face trial and commensurate punishment once convicted. If the Brits won't prosecute, the Kenyan government should demand the suspects be brought here for trial. Some things matter more than just blood money. 

[email protected]