Resolving Conflicting Narratives: The Tom Mboya Assassination

 I’ve received numerous emails asking me to address recent claims made by former Kenyan intelligence officer James Lando Hen regarding the assassination of Tom Mboya. Many viewers have pointed out discrepancies between Hen’s account and the information I’ve shared on this channel about the same event. The underlying question seems to be: Who should we trust—a former intelligence officer or an independent researcher like myself?

Let me first acknowledge that Hen has shared significant insights into Kenyan history, particularly on the assassination of former Foreign Affairs Minister Robert Ouko. His detailed account, including previously unknown events such as Ouko getting a tractor ride to Koru after a road accident, demonstrates the depth of his knowledge on certain matters. As a former intelligence officer, Hen had access to privileged information during his service, making his contributions valuable.

However, when it comes to the assassination of Tom Mboya on July 5, 1969, there are important factors to consider. At the time of Mboya’s death, Hen was only 8 years old, meaning his information—like mine—comes from secondhand sources. Furthermore, Hen’s rank in the police force when he retired was that of an inspector. Junior officers, like Hen, often had access only to filtered narratives, some of which were deliberately crafted by senior intelligence personnel to mislead or obscure the truth.

My Research on the Mboya Assassination

For over 15 years, I have thoroughly researched the assassination of Tom Mboya, cross-checking and verifying information from numerous credible sources, including senior police officers and independent experts. This painstaking process has led me to conclusions that differ significantly from the narrative Hen has presented.

Hen’s account aligns with one of the many false narratives surrounding Mboya’s assassination—claims that it was simply a personal vendetta or a preemptive move by Jomo Kenyatta to protect himself. While these stories make for thrilling plots, they overlook the broader political context of the time.

The assassination of Mboya was part of a larger sequence of events, starting with the murder of Argwings Kodhek in January 1969, followed by Mboya’s death in July, and culminating in the Kisumu massacre later that year. These events were not isolated but interconnected, forming a deliberate strategy to consolidate political power and silence dissent.

Correcting the Record

Hen’s narrative also contains factual inaccuracies. For instance, he claims that Mboya was killed on a Sunday, when in reality, July 5, 1969, was a Saturday. Such errors, though minor, raise questions about the reliability of his overall account.

Additionally, Hen’s claims about Professor George Wajackoyah’s role in investigating the murder of Ouko also seem to be based on limited information. According to my research, Wajackoyah was assigned the case not to uncover the truth but as part of a performative effort by local intelligence to appease foreign powers.

Balancing Perspectives

I respect Hen as a genuine Kenyan committed to shedding light on our country’s history. However, his information about the Mboya assassination appears to reflect the partial narratives made available to him during his time in the intelligence community.

In contrast, my work as a journalist has allowed me to approach the subject with independence, verifying claims through multiple sources. I stand by the conclusions I’ve presented in my series, “Mboya: It Was More Than an Assassination,” which meticulously unpacks the political motivations and events surrounding his death.

For those interested in exploring this further, I’ve included a link to the series in the description of my YouTube video. The facts may not be as sensational as conspiracy theories, but they provide a clearer understanding of Kenya’s political history.

Closing Thoughts

While disagreements in historical narratives are inevitable, they provide an opportunity for deeper inquiry and understanding. I encourage Kenyans to critically examine all accounts, including mine, to arrive at informed conclusions. Let us use these discussions to build a better understanding of our past and, ultimately, a better Kenya.