Dark shadow of human right abuse claims continues to stalk British owned agricultural firm Kakuzi PLC

A dark shadow of human rights abuse accusations and other violations continue to haunt Kenyan-based agricultural firm and British owned multinational Kakuzi PLC, The Informer Media Group can authoritatively reveal.

From its handling of squatters’ settlement amid alleged intimidation of neighbouring communities and human rights violations, Kakuzi has also not shied away from controversies and labour violations.

For years, the firm has been fighting off accusations by communities in Murang’a County – and to some extend the neighbouring Kiambu – who demand compensation for historical injustices, including colonial land dispossession.

A group of families have gone to court seeking to be settled on Kakuzi land, with the company having previously agreed to allocate land for resettlement.

In the latest development, the foreign-owned agricultural company has been accused of reneging on an agreement to settle 25 remaining squatter families of Gachagi village, out of an initial 35 which were to get one acre each in accordance with a signed agreement.

Kakuzi had previously been fingered for acts of violation of human rights, among them setting its guards against villagers for trespassing on its vast land or having them arrested and charged in court.

There has been cases of scores of suspected trespassers who have been brutalized by the company’s guards. In one such incident a few years ago, two journalists sustained serious injuries when the guards pounced on them as they covered a demonstration by the squatters and clobbered them senselessly.

Lately, Maragua Member of Parliament Mary Waithera revisited the matter and raised the red flag over the squatters’ settlement issue, giving the Kakuzi management two weeks to fulfill its part of the bargain or face demonstrations.

Threatening to lead demos against the company, the legislator accused the management of intimidating the squatters in a bid to stop them from pursuing their rights.

“The company has a history of violating human rights and committing historical injustices against families that have worked for them for decades. We are going to escalate the issue to international level and I won’t relent until justice is achieved,” said Waithera.

The MP who had visited the families living in squalor at Gachagi village, said only 15 had been settled and accused the company of failing to honour a 2010 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed by the management and representatives of the squatters.

“Everything regarding the settlement of these families had been completed and we even went to the ground to see the land to be allocated. I don’t understand why we are now being taken in circles,” Waithera lamented.

Residents led by Gachagi village Chairman Michael Mbure alleged that Kakuzi had intensified surveillance using drones, a move they feel is meant to intimidate them.

“We can only interpret this as an act of intimidation so that we don’t pursue out demands, but we shall not buy fear (sic),” said Mbure, adding that most of the squatters have lived there for over 40 decades whereas some of their parents died while still pushing for demands to be allocated land.

Efforts to get a response from the company were fruitless, but among documents availed to ‘The Informer’ including a letter signed the Kakuzi Managing Director Chris Flowers, the company has denied committing itself to excise part of its land for settlement of squatters.

“The nature and intent of the MoU (initially signed on 11th May 2010 and renewed on 16th January 2017) entered between the company and members of the Gachagi Self Help group is explicitly clear. Kakuzi has never implied, suggested or agreed to excise any land from its title deeds,

“The primary and the sole purpose of the MoU is to facilitate a ‘license’ to use a portion of land by the Gachagi group within the designated area,” reads the MD’s letter also copied to the Murang’a Governor and the County Commissioner as well as the Deputy County Commissioner Murang’a South.

In another letter dated May 25th and signed by the company head of Corporate Affairs Simon Odhiambo, the company denied claims that it had committed itself to “gift” the squatters with a portion of land as alleged by the residents.

“Over the years, a mutually agreed MoU has been in place between the residents of Gachagi and Kakuzi. It permits specific community members who are parties to the agreement to occupy portion of our land measuring 10 acres in consideration of an annual fee and adherence to outlined conditions,” Odhiambo wrote.

On the issue of drone surveillance, Odhiambo said it’s part of the security measures adopted by the company on the areas that are prone to security risks such as attacks on employees, theft of farm produce and vandalism.

However, the Murang’a County government took issue with the company’s position saying it should come out clearly on the legality of the said MoU.

“While we appreciate your engagement on land matters that affect community members, we find your letter and the accompanying MoU lacking in legal clarity to enable this office to advise accordingly,” reads a letter by the County Chief Executive Committee Member James Gatuna.

The official said it is not clear whether Kakuzi has any legal capacity to sublease, allocate or otherwise create rights and obligations over land that is subject to leasehold conditions.

Besides the 25 families demanding settlement on basis of the MoU with the company, there are hundreds of other aggrieved squatters who have lodged complaints over the same issue.

The National Land Commission (NLC) has recommended that Kakuzi land leases should not be renewed and has directed that the company to surrender land for public use.

The firm has also been at loggerheads with the Murang’a County government over the calculation and amount of land rates owed.

The devolved unit has ordered Kakuzi to pay Sh200 per acre in land rates, but the county has argued that the company has not provided accurate information about the land it owns.

Additionally, numerous court cases have been filed, including judicial review applications, matters concerning the validity of leases, and disputes over land titles.

Kakuzi has in the past recorded shocking labour rights abuses claims meted on employees and host communities.

For example, in 2021, a total of 253 grievances from local communities on human rights constituted more than two-thirds of the complaints.

According to the company’s Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) 2021 report, out of the 253 grievances, the company handled last year, 169 were related to human rights, 38 to work related injuries and 15 to safety and health.

The continued high levels of human rights concerns highlight the existing threat for the company which is recovering from dire reputational damage since 2020 when revelations of serious cases of human rights abuses by some of its guards at the Murang’a based farms against neighbouring communities were made.

In the ESG report released in the past, Kakuzi stated that under its operational and grievance mechanism (OGM) established last year to facilitate engagements between the firm and local communities following the 2020 accusations.

“OGM is a systematic, transparent, non-judicial process for receiving, investigating and addressing company related grievances from affected communities, workers, farmers who supply avocados through Kakuzi’s economic empowerment programme and other relevant stakeholders.” The report read in part.

“During the reporting period, Tier 1 received over 400 complaints related to labour, safety and health, work related injuries, sexual harassment, pollution and living and working conditions.” The report added.

In June 2022, Kakuzi was on the radar of the Capital Markets Authority (CMA) Kakuzi is over allegations of shifting profits abroad and corporate governance issues perpetrated by its majority shareholder Camellia Plc and transfer pricing.

The market authority has also stepped-up surveillance of the company for irregular practices that have hurt small shareholders and farmers while benefiting majority owners.

Minority shareholders of the company had previously complained about being locked out of the company board, which was controlled by the British company Camellia Plc.

The multinational controls 50.7 per cent of Kakuzi through its holdings in Bordure Limited and Lintak Investments.

Kakuzi is also facing publishing cooking books challenges due to its majority owners, who have long excluded local shareholders from the company’s board of directors.

Kakuzi is set to get awards for Large-Scale Orchards over 100 acres for its Murang’a orchards, Growers in Nursery and Seedlings for its Nursery in Murang’a, Large-Scale Export with over 200 containers, and Auxiliary Services for its top-notch Packhouse operations.

Two years ago, Kakuzi was ordered by the Haigh Court in Nairobi bear the costs of a defamation case it had filed against the Kenya Human Rights Commission in March 2021 year.

This is after the High Court ordered Kakuzi to incur the cost by its advocates and those of KHRC.

Justice Anthony Mrima ordered the firm to bear the costs since it is the one that filed the lawsuit declining the company’s request to order each party to bears its costs.

“The termination of the petition was after the KHRC filed responses to the petition. The reason for withdrawal of the petition by Kakuzi was given as to enable investigations by an independent team.” Justice Mrima ruled

Kakuzi had sued KHRC over an article that alleges it has over the years condoned violence, killings, rape and labour injustices.

In the petition that Kakuzi later withdrew at the High Court in Milimani, the firm said the article published on KHRC website after settlement of a case in the United Kingdom where 85 Kenyans were awarded Sh696 million by its parent firm Camelia Plc, could severely affect its business.

Through Kaplan & Straton Advocates law firm, Kakuzi described the article punished on the KHRC website as untrue and misleading.

Kakuzi thus wanted KHRC compelled to pull it down and publish a correction.

Kakuzi said that besides the atrocities said to have been committed since 2003, KHRC also accused it of bad corporate governance and gross historical and land injustices which have displaced more than 13 neighbouring communities within Murang’a and adjacent counties’.

However, Kakuzi thereafter withdrew the petition stating that there was no agreement between the parties on the issue of costs.