Click on an image to enlarge it in your browser window.
It is claimed by the Principal William Strath that this undated letter from school Trustee Rev. Reuben Makoi was written in September 1998.
This letter it seems was possibly produced at the request of the School Council as there was an urgent need to have the matter of the school Trustees settled due to Land Registry issues for new school buildings. This letter was possibly the letter requested by the lawyer (see the Minutes of the School Council meeting for 26th March 1996), though why it took two and a half years to procure the letter is not clear. Given that the letter is undated however, there is no way of verifying with certainty when the letter was written. It is interesting to note also that the issue of the Trustees was directly linked to the need to approach the Land Registry over new school buildings, yet at the School Council meeting of 1st October 1996 the decision had been made to have the supposed new Trustees from the letter of 7th June 1995 added to the Land Register. Clearly they must have been unsuccessful in this.
What is striking about this letter is that firstly Rev. Makoi claims to be the only surviving Trustee. This is clearly not the case. Not only as a Trustee would he be fully aware of the fact that the Archbishop was a Trustee (through the stipulation set out in the 1945 Trust Deed), but also, according to the letter of 7th June 1995, he in fact appointed five new Trustees to the Board himself. How can he claim to be the only surviving member when he had appointed five other Trustees in London?
It relation to the Archbishop, it is possible that following the questioning of the legal standing of the Archbishop as a Trustee by the School Council after he failed to ratify their suggested list of Trustees (see the Minutes of the Council meeting for 28th August 1997), that Makoi was somehow convinced by them of this. He has then assumed that the Archbishop had no authority over the school and thus believes himself to be the only surviving Trustee (knowing nothing of the dubious letter of the 7th June 1995).
It is interesting to note that this letter is written in the first person, rather than the third, as was the case with the 7th June 1995 letter, purporting to have been written by the same hand.
Strikingly, this letter exactly reproduces the list of Trustees that were recommended by the Archbishop in his letter, dated by hand of 10th April 1997. Did Makoi, having been convinced by the School Council's lawyer that the Archbishop was not a Trustee, still approach him for advice on who to appoint to the school's Board of Trustees? Clearly he was not prepared to ratify the list of Trustees given in the letter of 7th June 1995 which it is claimed had been written by him in the first instance. Makoi even uses the same terminology as the Archbishop and calls the list of recommended Trustees "...the true board of the Trustees." suggesting that he had seen a copy of the letter from the Archbishop.
On one copy of this letter, Robert Boulos has made notes for a meeting of the School Council in which this letter is to be discussed. He states that in a meeting of the 14th August, the Council approved the Trustees given in the letter of the 7th June 1995. He goes on to state that the Council have no authority to speak about Trustees as it is not their business. These are mutually exclusive statements. If the Council cannot speak about Trustees, then they cannot approve them either.