“MAU FOREST COMPLEX ON THE
SPOTLIGHT”
KENYAN’S MUST BE TOLD THE TRUTH
“Ogiek Opposition to the forest excision”
INTRODUCTION
“In grappling with our socio-economic cultural problems and the complex relationship
between the environment and good governance, we must not ignore the linkages between
landlessness, land tenure, cultural practices and habits, land titles, land use, and natural
resources management, which must be at the heart of policy options in environment,
constitutional law and human rights litigations, ” the words of Richard Kuloba and
Samwel Oguk, the then judges of the High Court in HCCA 238/99 of Francis Kemei and
9 others Vs the Honourable Attorney General and 3 others.
Yes, Kenyans are celebrating forty years of self-rule, while the Ogiek are remembering the
forty years of dispossession and institutional marginalisation of being rendered homeless and
lack of identity in their natural habitat. Safe to say while the majority of Kenyans are
yearning for the economic and political recovery, the Ogiek are begging for recognised
domicile. The Environment Minister is planning mass eviction, the beneficiaries will go
back to their homes of nativity, the Ogiek might be forced to join the street families.
FOREST COVER
The area under forests in Kenya is estimated at 2.4 million ha, of which 1.64 million hectares
are gazetted. The area of forest land not gazetted (0.76 ha) is fragmented into 273 forest
units. Forty percent of the units stand on 100 hectares or less. The closed canopy of
indigenous and exotic forest used to occupy about 1.22 million hectares; plantations cover
0.16 million (GoK, 1999). Closed-canopy forests outside the gazetted reserves used to cover
approximately 0.18 million hectares. The Kanu government proposed to add further 0.5
million hectares through afforestation and gazettement but it did the contrary. The NARC
government has promised to put in place measures to increase the forest cover to at least 8%
from the current 1.7%. The ongoing reforms at the forestry sector is meant to achieve this,
but this is not attainable before an overhaul of the corrupt, in-effective and compromised
provincial administration, who have contributed to the environmental disaster we are
experiencing.
1
The Forest cover has been changing over time and space. In 1897 the only restricted forest
area was Akamba Wood Strip running 2 miles on each side of the then Kenya Uganda
railway line. The wood strip was established under the Akamba Woods and Forest
Regulations. By 1932, 43 forests had been designed as government forest areas, which rose
to 1.05 ha in 1940 (IUCN, 1998). At independence gazetted forests stood at 1.8 million
representing 3.5% of the total land area. An aerial survey in 2000 shows that these forests
have dwindled considerably to 1.7% of the forest cover. (EAWS/KFWG, 2001). This shows
a loss of forest cover of 1.8%
MAU FOREST
The Mau forest complex covers over 290,000 hectares and represents the largest
remaining near continuous blocks of mountain indigenous forest in East Africa, it is
Kenya’s major Water Tower. It is situated approximately 250 km from Nairobi and
border Kericho to the West, Nakuru to the North and Narok to the South. It comprises of
South West Mau, East Mau, Transmara, Mau Narok, Maasai Mau, Western Mau and
Southern Mau. These seven forest blocks merge to form the larger Mau forest Complex.
Out of all these blocks, only Maasai Mau is not gazetted.
The forest lies between 2,000 m and 2,600m above the sea level, on the western slope of the
Mau Escarpment. It regulates the stream flow thus helping to control flooding and maintain
the water table in drier spells. It is also an important catchments area and drains into Lakes
Nakuru, Bogoria, Baringo, Victoria and Natron. It is the largest montane forest in East
Africa. The forest is a habitat for some rare and endangered mammals e.g. the Yellow
Backed Duiker and the Golden Cat. There is also a sizeable population of Elephants,
Buffalo and Giant Forest Hogs. The endangered Bongo antelope, rare primates like
Columbus, blue and red- tailed monkeys, besides butterflies and birds. It is rich in natural
amenities that add the much needed wildlife scenery.
The water from Mau forests serves more that 4 millions people inhabiting more than 578
locations in Kenya and several locations in Northern Tanzania. Each one of us is convinced
that the Kenyan government recognises the vital importance role of forests, their role in
rainmaking, water retention, recycling of oxygen, soil integrity, and provision of renewable
resources, biodiversity and tourism. This is the reason as to why it is coming up with new
environment and forest laws, vast improvement over the present largely inherited laws. To
fill this vacuum is the indigenous traditional knowledge of the Ogiek people.
The forest is the home of the Ogiek Community who were and still are in spite the invasion
by the land sharks and the ceaseless evictions by the successive regimes the only remaining
forest dwelling community in Kenya. The forest bill 2000 does not take into account this
fact true; leave alone the historical contributions of the Ogiek community on the
conservation measures and practices.
2
LONE VOICE
The Ogiek like other hunters-gatherers have been speaking on behalf of the Natural world
being plundered by governments and corporations. Today, the natural world is more
endangered than ever, and if anything their conditions are worse. At this time, the Ogiek
feel humanity must work together, not just for survival but also for quality of life based on
universal values that protect the delicate inter-relatedness of life that protects us all….
Biodiversity is clinical, technical term for this intricate inter weaving of life that sustains us.
The indigenous minority say and still maintain that they are related to this life; thus your
“resources” are their relations. They feel that by the greedy leaders enhancing policies that
work against them they are at war with Mother Earth.
THE STRUGGLE
The Ogiek people have a long history of resistance and struggle that has sustained their
unity, identity and cultural distinction. Lately however, more than at any other time in their
history, the very existence of the Ogiek as a distinct people has come under concerted threat.
The threat took the form of excision of large chunks of land from our forest homes by the
Moi regime and settlement of purported squatters thereon in total disregard of our identity,
culture and way of life.
Our concern is specifically the fate of our indigenous minority people of the Mau Forest. It
is noteworthy that the Mau provide 70-80% of the total forest area that is intended for
excision. We Ogiek have occupied this forest from time immemorial and are customarily
entitled to it. To settle so-called squatters on that land will deprive us of our only land and
home lead to our domination and marginalisation. In view of the grave ramifications that the
intended forest excisions and settlement will have for the Ogiek as a people, it was and still is
important to understand the basis of the Ogiek objection to the same. In this light, we call
upon the Presidential Commission of illegal and irregular allocation of public lands to
recommend for the revocation and nullification of the forest excision in question.
We added our voices to the local and international protests against the excision of forestland.
We never supported the attempt by the then year 2001 Ministers for Environment and
Natural Resources to part with our national heritage and ancestral lands for the following
reasons: 
The excision was to amount to a death warrant and would have led to the extinction
of our ancestral lands in the Mau forest complex. We shall in effect lose our only
home and birth right. While at the same time falling into the Government trap of the
Ogiek negative publicity and misinformation.

The move would have destroyed and denied our identity and cultural distinction.
Our identity has always been denied by branding us squatters and landless whilst we
have distinct ancestral roots in the Mau Forests Complex. The government elbowed
its way into our ancestral land through the Forest Act of 1930s and 1942s and
through purported conservation declarations and other laws. In the name of
3

conservation and environment justice, the NARC government is largely preparing
for its deadliest assault to the perceived environment terrorists. It is to our prayer
that they spare the “God’s chosen foresters”, the Ogiek.
The politically initiated settlement will lead to the assimilation of the Ogiek into
other groups with the express aim of rendering the Ogiek extinct. This extinction is
being carried out under the guise of settling the Ogiek. The government is thus
implementing the policies of the colonial government, which recommended in the
1930s that “Whenever possible the Ogiek (Dorobo) should become members of and absorbed into
the tribe in which they have closet or most affinity”.

The excisions manifested the Kanu government’s insensitivity to both local and
international opinion, and disregard of its own legal system and of rights recognized
by international law. For instance the excisions represented a blatant violation of a
court order that we the Ogiek obtained to stop the subdivision and allotment of our
forestland in Eastern Mau Forest.

Were we to support the excisions it would have amounted to taking sides with
powerful forces jockeying for power and control over natural resources at the
expense of the rights and interests of the weaker sections of society. For instance;
the second re-organizational, which was started way back eighteen years ago, by
Kanu Government whose systems were;
I. 2nd generation identity and voters cards
II. 2nd land adjudication and registration processes
III. Ethnic cleansing – Tribal clashes-Co-ordinated eviction at the pretext of
conservation.
IV Forest excisions schemes aimed at achieving security measures
In the name of sorting out the mess, the NARC Administration should focus widely as
the whole process is interwoven and will be very costly. The beneficiaries too will target
the Ogiek physical, economically and materially, with an intention of inflicting maximum
harm.
FACTS
The Ogiek people are among the only remaining forest dwelling communities in Kenya.
They number about 15,000 people. They live in groups and clans and are found in areas of
Nakuru, Koibatek, Nandi and Narok District in the expansive Rift Valley Province, and the
areas of Mt. Elgon District bordering Uganda and Kenya and in Northern Tanzania. They
are a cultural entity of their own. They speak the Ogiek language and practice selective
hunting and doing a bit of traditional agriculture within the system of land tenure common
to the forest dwelling communities. The tenure comprises of tree tenure, animal tenure and
4
land tenure. The Ogiek holds their land collectively while individual community members
and families enjoy subsidiary rights of use and occupancy.
These traditional lands are neither demarcated nor otherwise specifically recognized by the
Kenya Laws. By threatening sacred sites and the habitat within which the community
engage in hunting, gathering and other pastoral activities and farming, the logging
concessions and the temporarily stopped settlement scheme, not only threatens the integral
aspects of the Ogiek community’s existence, continuity and culture but it also seeks to kill
community's hope of passing on their identity and land to its children. It will further deny
their children an opportunity to grow in their own culture and enjoy their ancestral
birthright.
While the Ogiek were being evicted from one part of their ancestral lands on the ground that
they are a danger to the environment, other sections were being opened up for
miscellaneous settlement. The truth is that the real danger to the environment has been and
which the Narc government must accept the logging companies and individuals, the Tea,
coffee and flower plantations for European markets and a cartel of land mafia in the
department of lands and the agents of conquest, the provincial administration.
The former regime released many contradictory figures on the supposed beneficiaries of
its generosity. Our own statistics puts the Ogiek families in Eastern Mau at 543 families
with a total population of 5,484 members. This is both the number of adults and children.
Other areas where Ogiek are found take the remaining 10,000 persons. There are 12
major clans who own parcels of land in the Mau complex under the customary law where
glades, valleys, swamps, rivers and traditional sacred trees serves as boundaries. This
form of land ownership is what the current advocates of the market economy tenure seek
to nullify. The drive behind the other politically correct persons to impersonate as either
landless, squatters or Ogiek is for selfish reasons. The Ogiek just like any Kenyan of
sound mind know themselves and are able to identify and define their needs, besides
charting their destiny.
Other Kenyans too know the truth of the identities of the
beneficiaries, their backgrounds and the mission of the former regime population transfer.
Indeed it was a reward for good work done, were it not the case the more than five
5
thousand people in the influential positions, both in the old and new order would not be
among the beneficiaries.
SCHEMES UPDATES
 At Kapseita area of East Mau, of Elburgon Forest Station, 288 of the settled are
clash victims, the proposal were made by the Catholic Justice and Peace
Commission, Nakuru. Today there are more than 5000 beneficiaries, majority
being the business community. They were said to have been considered from the
Chepakundi displaces (of 1991) tribal clashes.
 At Bararget area of East Mau, Bararget forest station, 261 clash victims were used
to justify the opening up of this area for settlement purposes. They are said to be
survivors of the Njoro tribal Clashes, of 1998. The proposals were made by the
National Council of Churches of Kenya (NCCK- Eldoret) ironically it was not the
local Nakuru NCCK. Today we have more than 5000 beneficiaries, majority
being the senior civil servants of the former and present regimes and their friends
and relatives.
 Ngongongeri area of Mariashoni location was made an exclusive area for all those
who mattered in the former and present regimes. In local terms it is called
“officer’s mess” where “who is who” matter most.
 Nessuit Location – this is location with 70% foreigners and 30% locals while
Sururu, Likia and Teret is a haven for the beneficiaries from Kericho, Transmara,
Bomet, Koibatek, Bureti and Baringo Districts. Logoman was earmarked for the
Pokots.
 Tinet, Kiptororo and Saino in the South West and Western Mau – the identity of
the beneficiaries has been made a secret oath of the highest order. The true
position is that we have 10% of the beneficiaries, being members of Ogiek origin.
 Mariashoni, this is the only area which is clean with 90% local inhabitants being
Ogiek. The Ogiek land rights struggle is centralized here. The only remaining
intact forest and regeneration is in the same area, what a true foresters.
 Kiptunga Forest station had been earmarked for the Samburus, the local Maasai
and Keiyos. The local Ogiek on refusing to let lose the grip, delayed the finalizing
of this arrangement. Ever since a wagging finger is pointed to their direction.
The Ogiek share the following views on the settlement scheme initiative:
1. The Ogiek do not own these schemes and this is supported by the Provincial
Administration hostile attitude, their official documents and sworn affidavits. They
thus feel cheated and robbed off their only remaining home in Kenya. The scheme
was carried to dispossess them off whatever they hold; as it targeted their only
remaining home.
6
2. The settlement process does not and will never guarantee the protection of the Ogiek
cultural and ethnic identity as it seeks to assimilate the Ogiek into other communities
besides nullifying our identity.
3. The sanctioned programme by the Office of the President facilitated the
encroachment of our ancestral land by both the mighty and the powerful, who sought
to dominate us politically and economically.
4. The Scheme totally interfered with our customary land tenure that allowed communal
sharing of land and resources besides a peaceful co-existence of both human needs
and the environmental protection.
5. There has been much mistrust, suspicion, conflict, competition and even rivalry
between Kenyan communities and ethnic groups competing for power and control
over natural resources leading to the current invasion trend of the Ogiek ancestral
land under the guise of settlement and conservational purposes. The Colonialist
protected their interests through buffer zones, which ended up being forests, as
informed by the forest legislation Cap 385, while the KANU regime used Human
shields against persons it did not trust.
6. The former Minister for Environment and Natural Resources’ gazette notices aimed
at privatising section of land in Mau Forest, were acts of bad faith that are aimed at
denying the Ogiek a chance to follow up their pending cases, while the present
Minister for Environment, Wildlife and Natural Resources acts are of vengeance and
self aggrandising.
INTRANSIGENCE
Members of the Ogiek community have seriously suffered in the ever changing political
landscapes of our nation. They have been sacrificed for political selfish gains and are
still made Trojan horses for a race they have never applied for. Without their consent
they have been made proposals and successfully marketed. Today in the outside world, it
is difficult to understand the Ogiek demands for there are different group’s speaking for
and on their behalf. It is not surprising that the KANU regime behave in the way it
behaved for,
7
i)
It refused to affirm the existence of the indigenous minorities Ogiek collective
rights to their land, resources, and environment with this we can cite the sub
division and allocating of the community’s ancestral lands to people allied to its
regime and who also happens to be from selected districts.
ii)
When the Ogiek sought judicial protection by seeking redress in the courts of
law it never complied with the decision and orders of the court, instead it incited
the selected beneficiaries to invade the community’s ancestral land and subdivide it amongst themselves with the help of it’s agents.
iii)
It also refused to recognize the fact that the land issue to the Ogiek community
is not merely a question of possession and production, but it is also a material
and spiritual element which they should enjoy as well as a means to preserve
their cultural heritage and pass it to future generations.
iv)
It did not only discriminate the Ogiek community by denying them equal
protection under laws, but also violated its obligation under international law to
conform its domestic laws to give effect to the various human rights laws and
instruments that it acceded to.
v)
It intentionally maintained a clear, if unstated, policy to frustrate all efforts by
the Ogiek to secure legal protection for their traditional lands, culture, ethnic
identity and language.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE OGIEK CASE (HCCA No.635/97)
In this case members of the Ogiek community have sued the government of Kenya and are
challenging the legality of the demarcation and alienation of their ancestral lands. It is a case
of its own kinds as it exposes the government’s discriminative policy against vulnerable
indigenous minority communities such as the Ogiek.
The continued threats to Ogiek
ancestral land is thus as a result of the government sanctioning its invasion, whilst the
obvious result is a major environmental disaster to the whole country and the killing of the
Ogiek language, culture and identity.
8
The Kanu Government continued refusal to guarantee the Ogiek Community’s land rights
and its determination to alienate their land to powerful individuals within its bureaucracy
eroded the community’s confidence in it.
Parts of the Mau Forest for instance East Mau, is in fact the subject of an unsettled
constitutional suit No. HCCA No.635.97 – Nairobi seeking to declare land allocations in the
disputed forest is null and void. In October 1997 the High Court of Kenya issued order,
which prohibited further allocation of the suit land until all the issues in dispute are resolved
in court. The order is still in force. Hence the present purported excision of part of the
Mau Forest clearly constitutes contempt of court. The opening up of Bararget area in 1999,
the Kapseita block I, II and III in 1998, the Logoman in 2000 and the presence of surveyors
to date boils down to one notion, that the courts not stop a government hell-bent on
disobeying the very laws it ought to be safeguarding.
The Ogiek intend to call anthropologists, archaeologists, conservationists and other experts
as witnesses. They intend to adduce both oral and documented evidence in support of their
cause. The Ogiek regarded the overt pressure being exerted upon them by sections of the
provincial administration as a blatant attempt to interfere with the cause of justice.
Sometimes between 1991-1993, the Department of Overseas Development Agency (ODA)
which has since changed its name to Department for International Development (DFID),
financed an equivalent of an impact assessment, which was conducted by reputable team of
researchers from Kenya Indigenous Forest Conservation (KIFCON) who did their work in
South Western and Western Mau for a total of two years. They were only able to get a total
of 1800 names of who it questioned its authentically. The report was forwarded to the
president, who in turn handed over to the Provincial Administration, who doctored the
report and produced a book titled “Green Book” with a total of 3500 names, with the Ogiek
names being 200. We have since established that the doctoring was done by the late Ishmael
Chelanga, former Rift Valley Provincial Commissioner, with the help of the Nakuru District
Municipality, District Officer Mr. Samoei. The KIFCON group, it is said proposed that a
total of 25000 hectares be excised where they were made available to the forest dwelling
communities in this case, the Ogiek where they were to act as human shields to avoid
encroachment by the adjacent communities. The biggest question was and still is, why was
9
the forest to be protected from encroachment and whether the forestry officials had no
capacity to do it, hence this new mode of conservation of human shields. This it was said to
cover a five kilometres radius around the forest. This in accordance to the former regime
was to help in the security concerns, as it was to prevent certain communities from using the
forests as training grounds for armed activities. When Narc will finally have made up its
mind to have the forest glory restored, it should not borrow the idea that imaginary enemies,
to sabotage its regimes, can use the forest. Since those who benefited from the Kanu regime
generosity majority of about 95% had lands elsewhere, then they be made to go back to their
lands. Because the test of being either landless or squatters was misused and flecked.
In February, 2002, the Kenya government, on the advice of the multinational co-operations,
commissioned a new survey in the proposed areas for excisions with a view of retaining
critical water catchments zones which politically were put as part of settlement areas. The
area found habitable was a total of 32,000 hectares out of the total 67,000 hectares. To
redress the historical injustice, this was to be an Ogiek home, devoid of the land grabbers.
On March, the same year the environmental organisations went to court in a judicia review
No. 421/2002, this too had the Ogiek blessing. Before the finalising of the cases in courts
challenging the former regimes Wanton behaviour, here comes the Narc government with a
Presidential Land Commission and its reforestation programme, as it threatens to repossess
all the allocated land, the Ogiek look forward to their at last home of between (25,00032,000) hectares and most of all the conclusion of their constitutional matters in courts.
Whichever way, the home of the Ogiek is long over due; indeed it is 101 years ever since the
forest policy declared us homeless by naming our homes forests.
ADVICE
There is a powerful group of individuals who have thrived in the business of selling parcels
of land at a fee to the relatives of the politically correct and business community, the very
same group are alleged to have a massed wealth from the forest resources, thus occasioning
the lose of government revenue. This powerful cartel has links to the elements of both the
old and the new regimes, to whom they have been sharing the ill-begotten wealth. The
entire provincial machinery is privy to this for they have been the real beneficiaries. Ask one
Mr. Reuben Rotich, the Deputy Provincial Commissioner, Rift Valley, apart from being one
10
of the beneficiaries, of late just as he was doing part of last year he has been criss-crossing
Mau Complex holding both secret and open barazas (meetings, gatherings), to urge the
grabbers to speed up the development process, on 6th November, 2003, he was at Gichagi
area, Mariashoni location, of East Mau, where he supervised survey work and held on a
closed door meeting, where the word emerge that he was emphasising that Narc being a
weak government, it can not remove the beneficiaries and if it tried, strong armed resistant
would be the ultimate solution. This group is credited for the continued allocations of the
disputed lands and thus helping to accomplish the land grabbers’ dream. This brings us to
another focus, which is the authenticity of the cases filed in courts in which the applicants’
background and the prayer sought must be scrutinised.
To the surprise of Narc
government, a Truth Commission on the excision of forest is inevitable.
FUTURE FOREST POLICY:
The new forest policy - which is being formulated by the NARC Government - should put
in place mechanism that will see the Indigenous minority forest dwellers enjoying their
natural habitants and not to be punished as a results of government policies. These are;1) Much access to resources, development and of benefits sharing from their territory
as that enjoyed by farmers, pastoralists and fishermen as what is required for
development of the forest dwellers.
2) State to recognise their lands and must be protected from activities which are, in
environmental terms, unacceptable or actually unsuitable (Agenda 21, Rio, 1992).
3) Put in place criteria and indicators for sustainable forest development that meets
with the spiritual, cultural and social well-being of the Ogiek and the brothers the
Sengwer, Yiaku, Morti, IIK, Chepkitale etc, all who are forest dependant people.
4) Foster the development of sustainable development strategies by the forest dwellers
at the National and Local levels.
5) Accept that we, the Indigenous minority forest dwellers have our own concept of
protected areas and conservation, based upon our customary laws, traditional
knowledge and profound connection with our lands, territories and resources.
6) And, last but not least, the settlement scheme sanctioned by the office of the
President invaded our private lives, thus banqueting us rights inconsistence with our
demands.
11
CONCLUSION
The scheme must die a NATURAL DEATH if the Ogiek rights are to be realised. This
is because, for the last forty years of independence, the Ogiek have never known peace.
They have been subjected to systematic oppression, suppression and brutality. The road
to extinction via the assimilation highway has been the official policy of the rulers of the
day. If the Narc government is to have the Ogiek to contribute to its rich culture,
language and identities, then they should put in place mechanism to address the current
identity beginning from the official part of the Ogiek having a place to call A Home.
While the former regime accomplished the mission of the supper land grabbers, the
present one must accept the realities that the Ogiek have help Kenyans by voicing the
official injustices meted against them and their environment and thus co-ownership and
management of our Natural Resources is inevitable.
In this time of environmental and cultural terrorism, the Ogiek feel humanity must
work together not just for survival but also for quality of life based on universal values,
that protects the delicate inter-relatedness of life that protects us all- biodiversity is the
clinical, technical term for this intricate inter weaving of life that sustains us. “Yes own
the Resources but remember that we are related to this life”.
OUR VISION:
“……a just and equitable Society, where all people enjoys basic human rights and lives
in dignity”.
MISSION:
12
“…..to fight for the constitution rights of the Ogiek people, to promote their well-being
and preserve their environment, culture and identity”.
OUR BELIEVE

In all persons and communities are created equal

All persons have the rights to realise their full human potential

Believe in the respect for integrity of creation

Believes in the acceptance, recognition and protection of the Indigenous minority
people’s identity and cultural distinctions.
OUR IDENTITY:
“We are Ogiek people, the forest dwellers, the caretaker of animals and plants”.
OUR PEOPLE:
“We respect the dignity and worth of every person because all of us are made in the
image of God and have the right to enjoy the basic human needs. Our existence is
hinged to our land and our forest”.
OUR STEWARDSHIP OF NATURAL RESOURSES:
“We are accountable for both the achievement of desired results the management of
the natural resources and for the prudent stewardship of the physical environment.
The plants, the animals are our companion – the forest is our habitat”.
OUR INTEGRITY:
13
“We seek to be honest in our dealings as individuals and as a communal Institution
with regard to the environment. As trustees of animals and plants, we are committed
to exercising the highest standards of integrity in all aspects of our operations; we put
community traditional interests before personal interests”.
MUTUAL RESPECT:
“We pledge to appreciate, to nurture and to preserve our biodiversity, our culture
and our identity”.
OUR PROGRAMMES
Our programmes are geared towards:
1) Safe guarding the Ogiek Constitutional rights
2) Environment and Biodiversity Conservation
3) Socio-Economic Well Being which includes:
Bee Keeping

Education

Afforestation

Social Services
Our Partners are local and international organizations who have been touched by our
mission and who are assisting us materially, financially and morally. In this group are
churches, Non-governmental organizations, private organizations and institutions.
OUR CONTACTS:
Ogiek Welfare Council
National Secretariat
Kwanza House, 1st Floor
14
Kijabe Row, off Kenyatta Avenue
P.O. Box 12069
NAKURU
Tel 254 (051) 212736
By Joseph K Towett
National Coordinator
Ogiek Welfare Council
&
Secretary of the Hunter-Gatherers Forum
15