Safaricom now finds itself at the center of an intensifying national debate as many Kenyans grow increasingly uneasy about the security of their personal information.
What was once regarded as a trusted telecommunications powerhouse is being scrutinized for its alleged cooperation with state agencies in accessing private subscriber data.
The controversy has escalated sharply in recent weeks, driven by new investigative findings that have reignited public concern about whether citizens’ communications are being monitored without lawful justification.
The renewed scrutiny stems from a documentary released by Africa Uncensored, which presents extensive claims about how security organs may be tapping into Safaricom’s internal data systems.
The documentary asserts that a dedicated office situated within the company’s headquarters enables law enforcement and intelligence officials to pull up sensitive customer records with minimal oversight.
According to the filmmakers, this facility, known internally as the Law Enforcement Liaison Office, provides direct entry points into information such as call connections, text message metadata, and precise location details.
Journalist Namir Shabibi, who contributed to the investigation, describes how the integration between Safaricom’s infrastructure and national security operations allows officers to track individuals through cell-tower mapping.
In his assessment, routine network activity normally used to maintain service quality has been repurposed into a sophisticated surveillance pipeline that can follow users’ movements with remarkable accuracy.
These revelations have raised fresh concerns about the extent to which the legal requirement for court warrants is being observed or circumvented.
The allegations have sparked especially strong reactions because they mirror suspicions that surfaced during the 2024 Gen Z protests.
That period was marked by reports of unexplained disappearances, kidnappings, and covert arrests targeting activists and vocal critics of the government. The Kenya National Commission on Human Rights recorded more than 80 abductions by the end of that year, with several individuals still unaccounted for long after the demonstrations subsided.
Many Kenyans believe mobile data may have been instrumental in identifying and tracking those who were later detained.
One example frequently cited by critics is the case of software developer Rose Tunguru. She became known for creating an online platform that enabled citizens to relay protest messages to public officials. Her swift apprehension, despite the absence of any publicly known investigative leads, strengthened fears that her telephone data was accessed without legal authority.
Tunguru’s detention lasted four days and, by her own account, left her deeply shaken.
Additional concerns emerged from courtroom disclosures. During proceedings held on September 8, 2025, Safaricom employee Daniel Hamsi openly acknowledged sharing subscriber details with police in a case involving a young man accused of circulating a manipulated image of the president.
When asked whether a court-sanctioned order had been obtained prior to releasing the data, Hamsi admitted that none existed.
This testimony, though brief, validated long-standing assertions by rights advocates that data access was occurring outside the boundaries of lawful procedure.
Public commentary online has been equally forceful. Social critic Shoba Gatimu has argued that Safaricom has drifted from its earlier identity as a customer-focused enterprise to one that functions as an operational extension of the state.
Gatimu also ties the privacy issues to broader complaints about rising transaction charges, rapidly depleting data bundles, and the overall cost of digital services.
His commentary has resonated widely, prompting calls for boycotts and heightened accountability.
Safaricom’s shareholding structure where the government retains a significant stake has made it difficult for the public to accept its assurances of independence.
Although the company consistently denies participating in unlawful data sharing, past reports by organizations such as Privacy International suggest persistent structural vulnerabilities and political influence within Kenya’s telecommunications environment.
Even international entities have encountered obstacles; the International Criminal Court at one time struggled to secure telecommunications data from Kenya, illustrating the complex intersection between politics, privacy, and corporate operations.
Technology analysts now warn that Kenya’s surveillance landscape may be evolving beyond mere data requests. There are growing concerns that advanced spyware or monitoring tools could be integrated into network systems, enabling authorities to intercept communications or remotely activate device features without the user’s awareness.
These developments have significantly damaged Safaricom’s public image. A company that once symbolized innovation and national progress is increasingly perceived as an instrument of coercion.
