Squatters and the Roots of Mau Mau, 1905–1963. Tabitha Kanogo

and other produce. For the very poorest of these settlers, the total eradication of squatters or their livestock would result in the collapse of their agricultural undertaking. Also, in the more marginal areas where crop production was minimal even in good years, it was absolutely necessary that the squatters be allowed to keep livestock.

      Even within the same district, settlers would vary in their opinions about squatter livestock and, unable to arrive at a consensus, would eventually evolve a policy embracing numerous local options. In the predominantly dairy and stock area of Naivasha District, however, there was consensus over the need to eliminate squatter stock. In the Trans-Nzoia district, where settler production ranged from dairy and stock-keeping to maize and wheat production, opinion was divided, and here, as elsewhere, the policy of local options was employed.

      Nakuru District sustained a wide range of agricultural activities, which by the end of the inter-war period included pyrethrum, maize, wheat and coffee, as well as a certain amount of livestock. Although all these settlers were heavily dependent on squatter labour, the settler community at large did not see this as a mitigating factor and some of the settlers wanted the squatter community, as it existed in the White Highlands, to be completely replaced by resident wage labourers.

      Apart from taking individual measures to reduce squatter stock on their farms, settlers started pushing for legislation to back up their actions. But a court decision taken over the issue at the time left the matter unresolved. The judge argued that keeping what might be considered excess squatter livestock could hardly be regarded as an officially punishable crime.

      There is no such offence as maintaining cattle on a farm in excess of the number allowed by the contract. The fact of having an excess may be a ground for rescission of the contract between the occupier and the squatter, but it does not render the latter liable to conviction.³³