Safaricom has admitted in court that it accessed and used the personal data and transaction information of former employees during internal investigations, as a legal dispute over privacy rights continues at the Employment and Labour Relations Court in Nairobi.
The former employees sued the telecommunications company, accusing it of violating their privacy by processing and reviewing their personal information without proper justification.
However, Safaricom has defended its actions, saying the handling of the data was lawful and necessary for internal investigations and compliance purposes.
In a replying affidavit filed before the court, Safaricom explained that the information was reviewed during investigations linked to alleged conflict of interest, abuse of office, improper dealings with vendors, and suspicious financial transfers involving people connected to agencies and contractors working with the company.
The affidavit was sworn by Odhiambo Ooko, the company’s Chapter Lead for Employee and Labour Relations. He stated that the personal data and transaction records were used for several reasons, including internal investigations, disciplinary proceedings, compliance reviews, fraud prevention, preserving evidence, legal compliance, and protecting Safaricom’s legitimate business interests.
The company says the information was only handled by authorised staff, relevant departments, and professional advisers involved in investigations, litigation management, legal compliance, and regulatory matters. Safaricom insists that this did not amount to unlawful disclosure of private information.
At the centre of the case is whether the company went too far in accessing employee information. While the former employees argue that Safaricom crossed legal and ethical boundaries, the company maintains that employers must be allowed to investigate serious workplace concerns without being blocked by broad privacy claims.
Safaricom also acknowledged that employees have a constitutional right to privacy and protection of personal data. However, it argues that this right is not absolute and should not be used to stop lawful investigations or prevent cooperation with investigative agencies where necessary.
The company further denied publishing or publicly sharing any private information belonging to the former employees. It says the petitioners have not clearly identified what specific information was disclosed, who received it, when it was shared, or what harm they suffered as a result.
Safaricom is now asking the court to discharge, vary, or clarify interim orders issued against it, saying broad privacy restrictions could affect its ability to defend itself, carry out internal governance, and meet legal and regulatory obligations.
The case is expected to help define how far employers can go when handling employee data during workplace investigations.
