Safaricom’s influence in Kenya’s media and its close ties with government and security forces have become increasingly controversial.
As one of Kenya’s biggest advertisers, Safaricom spends approximately $4.8 million each month on advertising, giving it considerable power over media outlets.
This heavy spending allows Safaricom to shape media content by pressuring independent news organizations to tone down critical coverage of its operations.
In some cases, Safaricom has even withheld advertising funds from media outlets that criticize it.
This power dynamic raises concerns about the company’s role in potentially undermining media independence in Kenya.
With traditional revenue sources like banks, government, and telecommunications companies decreasing, many media houses have grown more reliant on large advertisers like Safaricom.
This dependency puts them in a vulnerable position where they may prioritize pleasing major advertisers over honest, critical reporting.
Safaricom’s relationship with the Kenyan government goes beyond just advertising.
The company has been accused of working with security agencies, particularly by sharing customer data.
During periods of increased security operations, such as anti-government protests, reports claim that Safaricom has disclosed private customer information to authorities, sometimes without informing customers.
Although Safaricom insists that it only provides data when there is a court order, critics argue that the company’s cooperation with the government has enabled invasive surveillance practices that infringe on citizens’ privacy.
This has raised fears about the extent to which commercial interests and government agendas overlap, especially when it comes to personal data and privacy rights.
Safaricom has also strengthened its ties with the government through initiatives aimed at improving cybersecurity.
In October 2024, the company organized a cybersecurity summit focused on protecting Kenya’s financial systems from threats.
Safaricom presented this summit as a step toward national security.
However, this partnership with government agencies also highlights how closely the company’s interests align with the state’s security objectives.
Safaricom’s investments in cybersecurity technologies, while beneficial in protecting digital spaces, also raise concerns that these tools could be used to monitor or control online activity.
These actions reveal deeper ethical questions about Safaricom’s dominant position within Kenya’s economic and social systems.
As the company begins expanding its business into Ethiopia, it is likely to face similar scrutiny.
Safaricom’s practices in Kenya suggest that its approach could have consequences beyond Kenya’s borders, affecting how digital and media landscapes operate in neighboring countries.
Safaricom’s activities in Kenya showcase the tensions between its commercial goals, media freedom, and citizens’ rights to privacy.
This situation highlights the urgent need for stricter regulatory oversight to prevent the misuse of Safaricom’s power and ensure that the company does not compromise media independence or invade citizens’ privacy for the sake of profit or political interests.
