President William Ruto’s administration introduced the Social Health Authority (SHA) in October 2024, aiming to improve healthcare services in Kenya.
To run this scheme, the government procured the Integrated Healthcare Information Technology System (IHITS) from a consortium led by Safaricom, along with Apeiro Limited and Konvergenz Network Solutions.
This deal, worth KSh 104 billion, was supposed to provide digital health solutions, improve medical supply chain transparency, and secure healthcare data.
However, an audit report by Auditor General Nancy Gathungu has revealed that the procurement of this system violated the law and left the government with no control over its own health scheme.
The report highlights that the government did not conduct a competitive bidding process before awarding the contract to the Safaricom-led consortium. Instead, the deal was done through a Specially Permitted Procurement Procedure, which goes against the Kenyan Constitution.
Public procurement laws require such deals to be transparent, competitive, and cost-effective, yet this contract was pushed through without proper oversight. It also failed to follow budgetary planning guidelines, raising questions about how such a massive deal was signed without clear financial planning.
One of the most alarming issues in this contract is that the government does not own the system it has paid for. The consortium retains all intellectual property rights and system control, meaning that for the next ten years, the Kenyan government will have no authority over a system it funded with public money.
This not only puts public funds at risk but also exposes the entire healthcare system to external control. The agreement even states that the government cannot develop a similar system in the future, essentially locking the country into a dependency on the Safaricom-led consortium.
Another major concern is how the system is expected to generate revenue. The government plans to collect KSh 111 billion over ten years through SHA member contributions, health facility claims, and a 5% deduction from healthcare providers.
This means that hospitals will be forced to pay more to access the system, which could result in higher costs for patients. Despite this heavy financial commitment, there was no baseline study conducted to determine if the revenue model is sustainable.
The entire deal seems rushed and poorly thought out, making it likely that Kenyans will be the ones to suffer the consequences.
Accountability in this deal is also highly questionable. The contract requires that all revenue be deposited in an escrow account, yet the Auditor General’s report reveals that the government does not have control over this account. The identities of the account signatories remain undisclosed, raising fears that public funds could be mismanaged or even lost.
The agreement further states that any disputes related to the contract must be resolved in the London Court of International Arbitration, completely bypassing Kenya’s legal system and reducing the government’s ability to challenge any unfair terms.
Parliament has also raised concerns over this deal, with lawmakers questioning why such a costly system was necessary when upgrading the previous NHIF system would have cost only KSh 700 million.
The MPs argue that the deal was rushed without public participation, suggesting that Kenyans were never given a chance to scrutinize how their money was being spent.
Many believe that this deal was designed to benefit the companies involved rather than the public, given that the government has no control over a system it fully funded.
This scandal exposes Safaricom’s role in questionable government dealings. The company has once again been linked to a shady deal where billions of taxpayers’ money are funneled into a project that lacks transparency.
Despite being presented as a solution to improve healthcare, the IHITS contract appears to be a well-crafted scheme to keep the government dependent on private entities. The fact that Safaricom and its partners retain full control means they will dictate how healthcare data is managed, who can access it, and how much it will cost the public in the long run.
This situation raises serious concerns about whether Safaricom is genuinely working in the interest of Kenyans or simply using its influence to secure lucrative government contracts. The fact that a major corporation like Safaricom can be involved in such a deal without public accountability suggests that corruption and greed continue to drive key decisions in the country.
If this deal is allowed to stand, it will set a dangerous precedent where private companies can take control of essential public services while the government remains powerless.
The SHA system was meant to improve healthcare access, but instead, it has become another example of how the government is failing to protect public resources.
Safaricom’s role in this deal should be questioned, and Kenyans deserve to know why billions are being spent on a system that offers them no guarantees.
Without urgent intervention, this contract will continue to drain public funds while benefiting a few well-connected corporations at the expense of millions of ordinary citizens.
