I never said it was done specifically while he was an officer. I said that he was a British army officer (he was) who put down rebellions against British rule. You are focusing on a detail where you think I was claiming something that I wasn't. The use of language was imprecise in not separating the time periods, but that was all. I am fully aware that he wasn't an officer while he was putting down a rebellion - but that does not stop me from pointing out that he was a British army officer. If I had simply said "soldier" initially instead of "officer" would that have prevented this confusion? If so, then yes I should have phrased it differently initially.He didn't put down any rebellions at all against British rule as an officer, it was only as a private that he was involved in such fighting in Kenya
As for "it was not the British who raised him up in the ranks far beyond his capabilities", are you sure? He had an elementary school level education apparently. Even if that is sufficient to be a lieutenant in the Britsh army, should someone like that really be the highest or second highest ranking native officer in a country?