Was Dedan Kimathi a terrorist?

On the surface, it seems simple to define what terrorism is and who participates in it. There are many famous leaders who were branded terrorists in their own time, only later to be called revolutionaries or visionaries (Nelson Mandela). War and rebellion are a messy business, and the pursuit of goals or ideologies can often blur lines between right and wrong, rebellion and terrorism. Although there is evidence to support the conclusion that Dedan Kimathi was a terrorist, many inhabitants of modern day Kenya might point to other evidence and argue the opposite.
To begin, it is important to examine the definition of terrorism. That seems like it would be easy to define, but even the UN has failed to agree upon a definition for terrorism. There are some key ingredients. The first is that the act is politically inspired and involves violence or the threat of violence. It is designed to have psychological impacts on populations (hence the word "terror") and is conducted by sub-groups, not states. The key difference between terrorism and other military endeavors is that terrorism targets civilians deliberately.
Now, how does this fit with what we know of Dedan Kimathi? To understand the man, we must understand the movement. Dedan was part of the Mau Mau. The Mau Mau were essentially a militant splinter group of the Kenya Africa Union (KAU). The KAU were active in the Kenyan government, which was at the time still ruled by the British. At this time in Kenya, the native populations had basically no land rights and were given the worst of the farm land. The KAU fought for better land, education, representation, and legislation—all were denied. The Mau Mau movement grew out of the frustration with the ineptitude of the moderate KAU and decided to push for reform through violent means.
The majority of the Mau Mau were of the ethnic group Kikuyu, the largest ethnic group in Kenya. The Mau Mau forced those who joined its ranks to take oaths to the movement and then targeted other Kikuyu who were seen as siding with the British, forcing the majority of the ethnic population to choose sides.

“Those initially targeted by the Mau Mau were Kikuyu who collaborated with the Europeans. In 1952 a wave of violence was directed at the witnesses who provided testimony against Africans, particularly in cases related to Mau Mau. Prominent collaborators were assassinated and a small number of white settlers were also attacked.” (South African History Online)

In 1952, the British declared a state of emergency in Kenya. Many squatters moved to the forests, as Mau Mau attacks on British nationals and African loyalists intensified. The British essentially established concentration camps for the Kikuyu.

“The government troops adopted a policy of collective punishment, which was again intended to undermine popular support of the Mau Mau. Under this policy, if a member of a village was found to be a Mau supporter, then the entire village was treated as such.” (South African History Online)

By 1955, the majority of the Mau Mau movement had been captured, and the remaining forest troops were starving and lacking in ammunition. By the end of the year, further military campaigns were impossible. Then, in late 1956, one of the remaining chief organizers, Dedan Kimathi, was captured. He was arrested, convicted, and hanged for having “ammunition in circumstances giving rise to a reasonable presumption that it was intended for a purpose prejudicial to public safety and maintenance of order” (Law Reports: The Trial of Dedan Kimathi). However, it is of note that in this trial, the burden of proof rested on the accused.
The question remains—what in this points to Dedan Kimathi being a terrorist? Dedan Kimathi became involved in 1950, when he was secretary of a branch of the KAU that loosely controlled the Mau Mau. He joined a militant branch in 1951. Arguably, the man was a terrorist, because the organization rested on terrorism in a strong sense. Attacks were not carried out upon the British military to begin with, but upon Kikuyus loyal to the British and upon British natives. If we evaluate the situation based on the UN guidelines on terrorism, Dedan Kimathi led a sub-state group that operated on an ideology for political change, targeted civilians, and sought to use violence to force/inspire Kikuyu natives to choose a side.
On paper, yes, it is arguable that Dedan Kimathi was a terrorist and head of a terrorist movement. However, the Mau Mau insurrection, which he led, was the beginning of a movement toward Kenyan independence from the British, which occurred in 1963. Today, there is a memorial and statue of him in Kenya, commemorating him as a hero. To offhandedly label him solely as a terrorist minimizes the true nature of his movement and the complexity of the Mau Mau movement in Kenyan history.