The Enkare cooperative hall displayed colour charts, sample strips, and a sign:
**NO PHOTOGRAPHS WITHOUT CONSENT.**
Seventeen women attended the meeting. Nadia sat away from the head table.
Savanna Crown legal declined the invitation, calling the review premature.
Mama Naserian opened the agenda:
Urithi licensing.
Sample registry.
Jina Trust notice.
Royalties.
Nadia’s conflict.
The sample keeper, Resian Parsaloi, brought three books.
One listed motifs approved for commercial adaptation.
One contained restricted ceremonial patterns.
One recorded every physical sample.
The Urithi U-17 bag used a central crossing motif that Mercy publicly called **The Warrior’s Promise**.
“That name is hers,” Resian said. “Not ours.”
The original workshop description was **Enkipaata Memory Line — restricted adaptation**.
The cooperative had authorised only a simplified border. The central crossing motif required new approval and could not be placed on a handbag merely because a luxury buyer liked it.
“Nadia, did you approve the launch version?” Mama Naserian asked.
“No. My final approved file was U-17C.”
The registry showed:
U-17A: rejected for size.
U-17B: Mercy suggestion, rejected for colour and missing maker notes.
U-17C: approved adaptation developed by Nadia and the Resian team.
U-17D: strap test.
U-17F: no registered sample.
Mercy’s public notebook claimed U-17F months before it existed.
The Savanna Crown website sold the bag for KSh 86,000 and described it as:
**Inspired by timeless East African heritage.**
The page did not name Enkare.
The licence required the cooperative name, a royalty per unit, sample approval, and no generic wording that erased the source.
Nadia admitted she had once accepted attribution on an inner card rather than the product page because Kelvin said long copy reduced sales.
“The card can be thrown away,” Mama Naserian said. “The page is what the customer sees.”
The finance officer revealed overdue royalties of KSh 1.6 million.
Members argued.
Some wanted immediate suspension.
Others feared losing school-fee income from production.
Nadia did not vote.
The secret ballot decided:
Suspend Urithi.
Allow older approved products for thirty days only if arrears were paid.
Stop U-17F.
Demand an independent design audit.
Issue a factual statement that made clear the decision belonged to members, not Nadia.
Savanna Crown responded:
**The company owns commissioned designs and rejects attempts by a former employee to disrupt livelihoods.**
Kelvin called Nadia.
She sent a message:
**All company, trust, land, and design communication must go through counsel.**
He replied:
**Manze, stop using these women to destroy what we built.**
Mama Naserian read the message.
“These women,” she repeated.
The screenshot entered the next meeting record.
Mercy had a label, cameras, and a runway.
She did not have a registered sample, a valid licence, or the hands required to make the product.
The vote required more than anger.
The finance officer modelled the effect of suspension on members’ income.
Production units could lose several weeks of work. School fees and loan repayments were approaching. A full suspension carried a cost for women who had not created the false launch.
One member proposed allowing already-approved older products while stopping Urithi. Another demanded immediate withdrawal from Savanna Crown entirely.
Mama Naserian asked Nadia for her recommendation.
“I have a conflict.”
“You may state operational facts without voting.”
Nadia explained existing stock, customer timelines, and what could legally continue under the older licence.
The final compromise came from members, not her:
Older approved items could continue for thirty days only if arrears were paid into a controlled account. Urithi remained suspended. No restricted motif could be negotiated informally.
The decision was not emotionally pure. It protected rights while preventing the most vulnerable makers from carrying the entire cost of the dispute.
After the meeting, Purity—the member who had opposed suspension—told Nadia:
“I do not trust Kelvin. I furthermore cannot feed my child with a principle.”
Nadia answered:
“Then the structure must pay for the principle, not only your household.”
That conversation later shaped the transparent order-rotation rules.
The concluding observations of chapter 4 established clear procedural direction for all subsequent administrative actions.
The financial audit for chapter 4 demonstrated strong revenue growth exceeding initial projections.
Financial controllers reported robust growth in net revenue following the launch of the new commercial initiative.