Petitioners challenging the Government’s proposed sale of a 15 per cent stake in Safaricom PLC have asked the High Court to declare the transaction unconstitutional, arguing that it amounts to an unlawful disposal of a strategic national asset disguised as a revenue-raising measure.
In submissions filed before the Constitutional and Human Rights Division of the High Court, the petitioners, led by Kalonzo Musyoka and Lempaa Suyiaka, argued that the National Treasury lacks constitutional authority to raise revenue through the sale of public assets.
They told the court that the Constitution only permits the national government to raise revenue through lawful means such as taxation, charges and borrowing, and not through the disposal of strategic state holdings.
The petition was filed by Tony Gachoka, Prof. Fredrick Onyango Ogola, Paul Maina Mugo and Samuel Kahara Macharia, who are seeking orders to stop the Government’s plan to divest its 15 per cent shareholding in Safaricom in favour of Vodacom Group.
The petitioners argued that the proposed transaction would reduce the Government of Kenya’s stake in Safaricom from 35 per cent to 20 per cent, while increasing Vodacom’s effective control to about 55 per cent, giving a foreign-linked entity majority influence over one of the country’s most important companies.
They urged the court to recognise that Safaricom is not simply a telecommunications provider but a strategic national infrastructure platform that supports key government operations, including digital financial services, public service delivery and election results transmission.
The petitioners further claimed that the proposed sale price of Ksh34 per share significantly undervalues the Government’s stake, potentially exposing the public to losses amounting to billions of shillings.
According to the petitioners, transferring effective control of Safaricom raises serious concerns relating to national sovereignty, public trust, national security, data governance and competition policy, and cannot be handled as an ordinary commercial transaction.
They have asked the court to find that the intended sale violates various constitutional provisions, including Articles 1, 10, 35, 73, 75, 201, 227, 232 and 238 of the Constitution, and to issue orders stopping the transaction.
The case will now be considered by the High Court as the petitioners seek to prevent the Government from proceeding with the planned divestment pending determination of the constitutional questions raised.
