Replies

There's more than meets the eye here ... it seems the "Republic of Kenya" might have existed before Dec. 12, 1964.

Please read the following about the "ten mile strip" of what is now "Coastal Province":

The Constitution of Kenya Review Commission - [Cached Version]
Published on: 9/1/2002

Views were divided as to whether the coastal strip should be treated as a single entity with Kenya Colony, or whether it should be handed back to the Sultan of Zanzibar or it be treated as an independent entity and declared Independent.

In a report submitted to the British Government and the Sultan of Zanzibar entitled ‘The Kenya Coastal Strip Ð Report by the Commissioner’ Mr. Robertson recommended that the coastal strip be incorporated into Kenya before self government and independence subject to certain safeguards being given to the coastal people which should be entrenched in the constitution.
...
Robertson further recommended that the British Government abrogate the 1895 Agreement with the Sultan of Zanzibar and that another Agreement be made between the Government of Kenya and the Sultan of Zanzibar whereby the Sultan of Zanzibar will surrender his Sovereignty claims over the Coastal strip in consideration of the Kenya Government undertaking to respect and safeguarding inter alia the maintenance of the Sharia Law for Muslims and the retention of the Kadhi’s Courts.
...

On the 5th October 1963, the said Agreement was actually executed in the form of an exchange of letters between the Prime Ministers of Kenya and Zanzibar Messrs Jomo Kenyatta and M. Shamte respectively.

...
That Kadhis’ work should be restricted to judicial work and Muslims to elect their own Islamic/spiritual leader (mufti) who will be their official spokesman and an advisor to the government on issues affecting Muslims in Kenya.
...
Muslim personal law on marriage, divorce, inheritance and succession is not codified into legislation in Kenya. It is left to the Kadhi’s in their different courts to interpret the law as they understand it.There are no reports of the Kadhi’s Court's decisions - hence this has hampered the growth of Islamic Law jurisprudence in Kenya.
...
Muslims are mainly of two sects in Kenya - the Sunni and Shia.Majority of the Muslims in Kenya are Sunni Muslims but there is a significant population of Shia Muslims too and consideration ought to be given to the appointment of Kadhis of the Shia Sect to cater the interest of the Shia Muslims.
...
Under Section 66 of the constitution as read with the provisions of the legislations passed pursuant to that Section, Islamic Law is clearly recognised as a source of the Laws of Kenya in as far as matters pertaining to marriage, divorce and inheritance for the Muslims is concerned.The Kadhi’s Court's and the High Court must apply the Muslim Personal Law in dealing with Muslim personal matters. However, Section 3 of the Judicature Act, Chapter 8, Laws of Kenya which lists the sources of the Laws of Kenya and provides for the Jurisdiction of the various Courts in Kenya, does not include Muslim personal law as one of the sources of the Laws of Kenya subject to limitation as to the scope of application.The result has been that Institutions of higher learning in Kenya that teach law to students do not include Islamic Law in their curriculum or courses.Consequently, when lawyers get admitted to the bar in Kenya as advocates with the right of audience before all Courts, they find it difficult to effectively represent clients in the Kadhi’s Court's especially if they are not Muslims and have not studied Islamic Law. It is therefore necessary to recognize Islamic Law as one of the sources of the law in Kenya and for the same to be taught at universities and in the Kenya School of Law.

I'll reiterate the key quotations from this official Kenyan report:
... "Views were divided as to whether the coastal strip should be treated as a single entity with Kenya Colony" ...
... "Islamic law" ...
... "Muslim personal law on marriage, divorce, inheritance and succession is not codified into legislation in Kenya." ...

and MY personal favorites:
... "recommended that the coastal strip be incorporated into Kenya before self government and independence subject to certain safeguards being given to the coastal people which should be entrenched in the constitution" ...
... "Agreement was actually executed in the form of an exchange of letters" ...

It appears the "Ten-Mile Strip" (where Obama's possible place of birth is located) was separate and seemingly sovereign from the county that WOULD eventually BECOME the "Republic of Kenya" -- at least for a short while in 1963 and 1964.

* I wonder what they might have called themselves in the interim, to ensure they wouldn't be annexed by Zanzibar, you know, BEFORE the whole of Kenya became a Republic on Dec. 12, 1964? *

My money is on the "Republic of Kenya". And this Kenyan birth certificate from the "Republic of Kenya" in February 1964 is looking MORE and MORE plausible...

This from this from Flags of the World, for what it's worth:

Wasn't the Protectorate in the coastal strip much more than the former Witu? Witu had formerly been a small German protectorate, exchanged in 1890, along with Zanzibar, for Helgoland and the Caprivi Strip. As I understand it the remaining Kenyan coastal strip, which was formerly under the control of the Sultan of Zanzibar, had already become a British protectorate before the exchange. Mombasa and other parts of this protectorate had never been part of Witu as far as I can see. Ned Smith, 26 Sep 2005 After 1920 the interior of the country was a colony, but the coastal strip and the formerly separate Protectorate of Witu, remained a protectorate. Witu was a relatively small area to the north of the coastal strip leased from the Sultan of Zanzibar by the Imperial British East Africa Company. Under the terms of the 1890 agreement with Germany, Witu was to remain separate from other British territories. This seems to have been observed until the Colonial Office took over from the Foreign Office in 1905, and was not formally abandoned until 1920. David Prothero, 27 Sep 2005 ( http://flagspot.net/flags/ke_witu.html ) I found this which explores the anomalous status of the coastal strip and is significant mostly for the assertion that:

Some people expected that since the coastal strip was never part of the British colony, it would have been granted self-independence —just like Zanzibar —once Kenya attained independence in 1963.

This was not to be. Then acting Prime Minister, Mzee Jomo Kenyatta, the British government and the Sultan of Zanzibar declined to grant the strip autonomy.

In a letter dated October 5, 1963, Kenyatta bound his government to some undertaking in recognition of the coastal strip.

“I have the honour to refer to the discussions held between our respective governments on the subject of the coastal strip and to place on record the following undertakings by the Government of Kenya,” reads the letter to the prime minister of Zanzibar.

His note further reads: “The free hold titles to land in Coast region that are already registered will at all times be recognised. Steps will be taken to ensure the continuation procedure for the registration of new free hold titles and the rights of free holders will at all times be preserved”.

The letter was used as a legal instrument binding the Government to respect the status quo of land prior to independence.

As revealed by a report prepared by Robertson dated November 23, 1961, some people were advocating for an independent Coastal State before independence: “I recommend that if any system of regional or county administration is set up in Kenya, the Coast Province of Kenya should be one of the counties.”

In 1964, Kenyatta used his office to send signals to the international community that Kenya might renege on some commitments made before independence. (Emphasis supplied)

(http://www.bushdrums.com/news/index.php?shownews=1205

....................................

Note:

While these blurbs tend to support a theory which says that the area around Mambazo was treated differently and might have acted independently of the rest of Kenya, even regarding itself to be a republic, I'm not sure that that is relevant to the question whether authenticity is undermined by the reference to "Republic of Kenya" in the purported Kenyan birth certificate. I say this because the reference to the Republic of Kenya appears to be to the whole of Kenya of which the Coastal Province is a division in 1964 rather than to the province itself. Moreover the reference relates to the date of the creation of the certificate, in 1964, rather than to the date of the entry in the original book, 1961.

Additionally, there are three appellations which appeared to be somewhat at variance:

First, at the head of the document it purports to be that of the "COAST PROVINCE" and immediately under that it says that it is of the "DISTRICT OF Mombasa". It is worth noting here that the phrase "DISTRICT OF" is obviously printed and the "mombasa" is obviously typed. So far, the reader is led to believe that the "COAST PROVINCE" has produced a form to be distributed to its DISTRICTS and "Mombasa" is one of those districts and, like the others, use the form and typed in its own district name.

Second, at the extreme lower left of the document appears the phrase: "OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL REGISTRAR, COAST PROVINCE, REPUBLIC OF KENYA". The script here looks to be the same as the script quoted above and I conclude that is part of the printed form. But I hasten to add I have absolutely no expertise in judging these matters. This tells me that the bureaucrats in this office, at least, regarded Kenya to be a republic in February 1964 with this document purported to have been created. Our problem is that there may have been expectations that the Coast Province was to be a republic or an independent entity of some sort, but this appellation seems to describe the whole Kenya and not just the Coastal Province.

Third, if one shifts his gaze to the right side of the bottom of the document you will see this affirmation:

I,... Joshua Simon CDUYA..., Deputy Registrar of Births, Deaths, and Marriages for the Coast Province of Kenya, do hereby certify that the above is a true copy of the entry recorded in the Birth Register of this Province, Book 44B, Page 5733. Given under my Hand and Seal of Office this 17th day of February, 1964

My surmise is the portion of the above phrase which appears in bold is also part of a printed form. Yet this printed portion describes Kenya not as a republic but as one would expect it to be described, to wit, simply as, "Kenya." If the printed portion of the lower left of the document had simply said "Kenya" and not "Republic of Kenya" we would not be chasing these rabbits, but we are.

What to make of these descriptions? Is this a forgery because it describes Kenya as a republic when technically Kenya was not yet a republic? Are we being too fastidious in our expectations for this third world country in the throes of a transition from one kind of government to another with a semi-dictator in power who is changing the rules of the game as demonstrated by the letters quoted above? Is the designation "Republic of Kenya" mearly the description of a bureaucrat who prepared a form for the printers without thinking through the significance of the appellation, "Republic of"? Or is it the unmasking of a forgery?

I simply put this out there for abler minds than mine to make of it what they will.I hope some better researchers than I am will soon uncover contemporaneous documents which settle this issue.