By Dr Lamin K Janneh
In January 1964, the world witnessed an astonishing episode in the annals of African liberation: a 26-year-old Ugandan-born bricklayer named John Okello led a revolutionary uprising in Zanzibar that toppled the 266-year-old Arab Sultanate in a matter of hours. His rise and fall, though brief, encapsulate a vital chapter in East African postcolonial history, laden with both inspiration and sobering lessons.
From Labourer to Liberator
John Okello was not a general, scholar, or politician. He was a migrant labourer, a mason by trade, and a devout man who believed he was divinely chosen to liberate the African majority in Zanzibar from minority rule. His ability to mobilise disenfranchised Afro-Shirazi Party youth, instil military discipline, and foster an ideological vision, despite having little formal education, speaks to the often-overlooked capacity of grassroots actors to redefine political landscapes.
The nine-hour revolution
On the night of 12 January 1964, Okello led an armed insurrection composed largely of African labourers armed with machetes, clubs, and a small cache of stolen rifles. By dawn, they had overwhelmed the police, seized the capital, Stone Town, and effectively dismantled the Sultanate. Abeid Karume, the Afro-Shirazi Party’s political leader, was declared president. Okello, meanwhile, adopted the title Field Marshal, acting as the de facto head of the revolutionary guard.
Rupture and repercussion
While the revolution achieved its immediate goal, African self-rule, it also unleashed a wave of brutal retribution. Thousands of Arabs and South Asians, many of whom had lived in Zanzibar for generations, were reportedly killed, raped, or displaced in what some scholars now consider as a form of ethnic cleansing. The revolution’s moral ambiguity, emancipatory yet violent, raises crucial questions about the ethical boundaries of liberation movements.
Silencing the revolutionary
Okello’s influence quickly waned. His populist style, Pentecostal zeal, and militaristic rhetoric clashed with the more pragmatic and diplomatically cautious Karume. By March 1964, Okello was forced into exile and erased from the official revolutionary narrative. He has reportedly died a few years later, politically discarded and economically destitute.
Key reflections for the contemporary African discourse
1. Popular Leadership and Non-Elite Agency: Okello’s case highlights how individuals from non-elite backgrounds can become agents of monumental change, challenging elitist models of leadership.
2. The Dual Face of Revolution: Liberation does not automatically translate into justice. The Zanzibar case reminds us that post-revolutionary violence often mimics the very oppression it sought to destroy.
3. Post-Revolution Governance: The marginalisation of Okello also reveals how internal power dynamics post-independence frequently subdue radical elements in favour of state-building and international legitimacy.
4. Memory and Erasure: Okello’s near-erasure from Tanzanian historical discourse reflects broader patterns in African historiography where uncomfortable figures are sidelined for the sake of national unity or political convenience.
Conclusion
John Okello’s legacy resists simplistic categorisation. He was a liberator to some, a fanatic to others, and a symbol of African revolutionary potential whose story was prematurely silenced. His trajectory offers a valuable mirror for present and future generations navigating the tensions between justice, power, memory, and the true meaning of freedom.
Let us study him not to glorify, but to understand.
