The Foreign Office’s propaganda arm, the Intelligence Research Department (IRD), has targeted the Kenyan nationalist in a three-year campaign run by its dirty tricks department, the Special Editorial Unit (SEU). Odinga’s son, Raila Odinga, may be elected president on Tuesday when Kenyans go to the polls. Oginga Odinga was an important figure in the struggle against British colonialism. After independence in 1963, the British identified the pro-Western president Jomo Kenyatta as their preferred leader. Vice President Odinga was leftist and open to relations with the communist bloc. Concerned that Odinga might replace Kenyatta, constitutionally or otherwise, the British sought to undermine him. Although, as British diplomats acknowledged, Odinga was not a communist, according to historian Dr Poppy Cullen of Loughborough University, he “posed an immediate threat to British interests”. Odinga not only favored radical domestic policies, but received financial support from the Soviet Union and Communist China. But President Kenyatta could not sideline Odinga as he represented the powerful Luo clan. Declassified files reveal four “black” operations against Odinga. In September 1965, the Daily Telegraph published a story titled “Document ‘Revolution’ in Kenya”. He cited a leaflet published by the East African People’s Front attacking Kenyatta’s government as “reactionary, fascist and dishonest”. However, he praised Odinga as a “great revolutionary leader” who would come to power from a “newly formed People’s Revolutionary Socialist Kenya”. In fact, it was an elaborate propaganda operation that raised suspicions that Kenya’s vice president was allied with Communist China. The IRD sent 80 copies of its leaflet to “top figures and the press”, the SEU recorded. Kenyan newspapers gave it massive coverage. Kenyan ministers are believed to have been convinced the leaflet was genuine. Referring to Odinga’s right-wing rival Tom Mboya, SEU’s John Rayner wrote: “An undercover report said that Kenyatta believed it was the work of the Chinese, that Mboya believed it had been issued by Odinga, and that Odinga had claimed that it was the work of the CIA.” Dr Cullen says: “It clearly shows that Odinga was seen as the main threat to British interests and the lengths to which the British were willing to go to smear him.” Odinga suspected he was a target. In 1964, he publicly complained about a “wave of slander and facile criticism” in the British press. Picking on British newspapers, including the Telegraph, whose correspondent Odinga was kicked out of Kenya four months later, he complained about reports suggesting he was plotting against Kenyatta. “British intelligence agents,” he concluded, “were sanctioned by their government to pass official information to the so-called ‘independent’ press of Fleet Street.” A declassified report for June to December 1964 reveals what appears to be the SEU’s first operation against Odinga. In October, the SEU published a pamphlet, purported to be from the “Loyal African Brothers,” calling the Kenyan leader a “tool of the Chinese” communists. Pro-Western politician Jomo Kenyatta is sworn in as Kenya’s leader in 1963. Photo: Bettmann/Bettmann Archive The Brothers were an invention of IRD propagandists. In nine years, 37 pamphlets were published by the bogus organization that supposedly wanted to “free Africa from all forms of foreign interference.” Kenyatta’s claims in April 1964 that “Mr. Odinga and his associates may attempt some kind of armed or other action to seize power” led to plans for British military intervention should the coup fears materialize. It also sparked another SEU operation accusing Odinga of involvement in a left-wing coup. Despite raids on the offices and homes of Odinga and other radicals, which resulted in the seizure of weapons, no concrete evidence of a coup was found and he remained vice president. An assessment by the British High Commissioner pointed to evidence of Russian arms shipments, weapons in communist embassies and facilities under Odinga’s control, and his involvement in military training for Kenyans in communist countries. But even he concluded that “the conspirators expected that overthrow would be possible by more or less constitutional means, and that weapons and trainees would merely give them extra assurance and support if needed.” According to Cullen, author of Kenya and Britain after Independence, while the fears were real, “the coup was probably largely imaginary”, a “pretext to move against Odinga”. However, IRD propagandists have lambasted the high commissioner’s report. An article titled “Kenyatta foils leftist coup” was published in a Swiss publication in an attempt to promote it to the Western European media. “It is now clear,” he says, “that only President Kenyatta’s decisive action successfully thwarted a pro-communist left-wing coup in Kenya.” Subscribe to First Edition, our free daily newsletter – every morning at 7am. BST According to Professor Scott Lucas, a University of Birmingham expert on British foreign policy, “The history of Britain’s propaganda operations in Kenya is a reminder that the days of a declining empire were not so glorious as deception, disinformation and dirty tricks . “ At its heart “it was an attempt by those in London to continue to exercise control over a former colony long after independence”, Professor Lucas said. Odinga resigned from Kenyatta’s government in 1966 and founded a new political party, the Kenya People’s Union (KPU). But the country’s experiment with multi-party democracy did not last long. Members of the KPU were detained without trial under draconian new laws. In 1969, the party was outlawed. Odinga was detained and later imprisoned by Kenyatta’s successor, Daniel arap Moi. Raila’s son, who followed his father into politics, was repeatedly imprisoned without trial before Kenya returned to democracy. It remains to be seen whether he will fulfill his father’s ambition and become the president of Kenya.
