The High Court has been asked to declare the government’s proposed sale of a 15 per cent stake in Safaricom unconstitutional, with petitioners arguing that the move would unlawfully dispose of a strategic national asset while handing greater control of the telecommunications giant to a foreign-linked investor.
In submissions before the Constitutional and Human Rights Division of the High Court, the petitioners, led by Wiper Party leader Kalonzo Musyoka and Lempaa Suyiaka, argued that the National Treasury lacks the constitutional mandate to raise revenue by selling public assets.
“The Constitution only permits the national government to raise revenue through taxation, charges and borrowing,” the petitioners submitted, urging the court to block the transaction.
The petition was filed by Tony Gachoka, Prof. Fredrick Onyango Ogola, Paul Maina Mugo and Samuel Kahara Macharia, who are seeking orders stopping the government’s plan to sell its 15 per cent shareholding in Safaricom to Vodacom Group.
Concerns Over National Control
According to the petitioners, the transaction would reduce the government’s stake in the company from 35 per cent to 20 per cent, while increasing Vodacom’s effective ownership to about 55 per cent. They argue that such a shift would hand majority control of Kenya’s largest telecommunications company to a foreign-linked entity.
The case goes beyond ownership, they say. In their submissions, the petitioners describe Safaricom as a key piece of national infrastructure, pointing to its role in digital payments, government service delivery and the transmission of election results.
They also questioned the proposed sale price of KSh34 per share, arguing that it undervalues the government’s stake and could expose taxpayers to losses worth billions of shillings.
Court Asked to Block the Deal
The petition further argues that transferring greater control of Safaricom raises broader concerns over national sovereignty, data governance, national security and competition, making it a matter of public interest rather than a routine commercial transaction.
The petitioners contend that the proposed sale breaches several provisions of the Constitution, including Articles 1, 10, 35, 73, 75, 201, 227, 232 and 238. They have asked the High Court to stop the transaction pending its determination.
The government has yet to respond publicly to the latest court submissions. The case is expected to test the constitutional limits of state divestment and the management of strategic public assets.
About the Author
