A fresh storm is brewing over a controversial Sh244 billion plan to offload the government’s stake in Safaricom PLC, with critics now accusing South Africa’s Vodacom Group of complicity in what they describe as a questionable restructuring that could alter control of Kenya’s most valuable company.
The unfolding row has triggered political, legal, and economic debate, with opponents warning that the proposed transaction could shift influence over Safaricom, and by extension its flagship mobile money platform M-Pesa, without sufficient public scrutiny.
Allegations and Political Pushback
The controversy centers on claims that a structured share transaction, reportedly valued at Sh244 billion, could dilute the government’s influence in Safaricom while strengthening Vodacom’s effective control.
Critics argue that although the deal is being framed as a financial restructuring or capital optimization strategy, its long-term implications could affect decision-making authority, dividend flows, and oversight of sensitive telecommunications infrastructure.
In a social media post on February 24, 2026, veteran journalist Tony Gachoka did not mince words: “VODACOM ENGLISH COMPANY BEING USED BY WILLIAM RUTO TO STEAL BILLIONS OF SHILLINGS FROM KENYANS, IN A SECRET DEAL WORTH 200 BILLION HAS PANICKED.” That, in a single capitalised declaration, is the Gachoka doctrine: a South African-registered, London-parentage corporate vehicle is being weaponised to siphon the birthright of ordinary Kenyans — and President William Ruto is holding the door open.
Gachoka has since filed a constitutional petition at the Milimani High Court alongside economics professor Fredrick Onyango Ogola, naming as respondents the Cabinet Secretaries for the National Treasury and for ICT, the Communications Authority, the Competition Authority, the Attorney General, Safaricom PLC itself, and Vodacom Group. The petition is a grenade rolled into the gilded machinery of Kenya’s biggest privatisation in a generation.
The Gachoka- lawyer Steve Ogola petition, filed at the Constitutional and Human Rights Division of the High Court in January 2026, reads less like a legal pleading and more like an indictment. Its central allegations are as follows:
Gross undervaluation: The petitioners contend that the KSh 34 price is a gross misrepresentation of Safaricom’s worth. Independent economic analysis places the shares’ intrinsic value at between KSh 70 and KSh 80 per share — a differential that, extrapolated across the 6 billion shares being sold, translates into a potential loss to the Kenyan public of over KSh 250 billion. The petition argues this price was “poorly and selectively negotiated by the respondents to the grave detriment of the Kenyan public.”
Opaque, non-competitive process: The sale was structured as a negotiated block trade with a single buyer — Vodacom — with no public tender, no competitive bids solicited, no disclosure of who advised the government, and no evidence that alternative buyers or structures were considered. The petition describes the process as “rushed, opaque, non-competitive and procedurally dubious.”
Constitutional violations: The petition invokes Articles 1, 10, and 227 of the Constitution — the pillars of public participation, national values, and transparency in the disposal of public property. The petitioners argue the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act, 2015 was bypassed, that the Privatisation Act, 2025 was not properly observed, and that Parliament’s role was reduced to a statutory rubber stamp — a 28-day window within which lawmakers must act or the deal proceeds automatically by March 26, 2026.
National security and sovereignty: Perhaps the most explosive allegation involves what Safaricom actually is — not merely a telecom company but a data sovereign, a financial artery, and a national security infrastructure. M-Pesa alone processes over 100 million transactions daily, services 38 million Kenyan customers, and forms the backbone of Kenya’s digital financial inclusion story. The petition argues that handing Vodacom 55 percent control would “irreversibly undermine Kenya’s strategic leverage over critical data infrastructure, mobile money systems and national security interests.”
On February 24, 2026 — the same day Gachoka published his explosive social media broadside — The Standard reported that Vodacom Group had filed a formal application before High Court Judge Lawrence Mugambi, asking to be struck out entirely as a respondent. The company’s argument: it is not a party to the government’s shareholding decision and exercises no control over it.
Safaricom PLC has taken a similar position, telling the court it is not the proper respondent as shareholding decisions rest with the government. Both companies, in effect, are pointing the finger at State House and the National Treasury — and asking the court to let them watch from the sidelines.
For Gachoka, this is precisely the tell. In his social media post, he claimed Vodacom was “trying to pull out“ and attributed this to fears of being linked to the kind of corruption scandals that have followed UK-connected corporate deals in Kenya’s recent past. Whether or not the legal manoeuvre amounts to a retreat under fire — or merely a legitimate procedural point — it has given Gachoka fresh ammunition to fire across every social media platform available to him.
Government’s Position
The National Treasury has previously defended proposals to restructure or divest certain state assets as part of a broader fiscal consolidation strategy aimed at easing public debt pressure and raising capital for development priorities.
Officials maintain that any transaction involving Safaricom would comply with the Capital Markets Authority (CMA) regulations, Nairobi Securities Exchange listing rules, and shareholder approval requirements.
However, critics insist that transparency must go beyond regulatory minimums given Safaricom’s central role in Kenya’s economy.
Vodacom’s Role Under Scrutiny
Vodacom, which already holds a significant stake in Safaricom alongside the Government of Kenya and public shareholders, has now been drawn into the controversy.
Accusers claim that the structure of the proposed transaction could disproportionately benefit Vodacom, potentially consolidating its strategic leverage over Safaricom’s operations and cross-border M-Pesa expansion.
Neither Safaricom nor Vodacom had publicly admitted wrongdoing at the time of publication. Insiders within corporate circles describe the accusations as politically charged and lacking documentary proof.
Market analysts caution that public rhetoric could unsettle investor confidence if not addressed promptly and clearly.
Market Reaction and Investor Concerns
Safaricom is one of the largest counters on the Nairobi Securities Exchange, with millions of Kenyans holding shares directly or indirectly through pension funds and investment schemes.
Any perception of governance instability could trigger volatility in the stock, analysts warn.
“Investors are watching closely. The issue isn’t just control — it’s predictability and regulatory certainty,” said a Nairobi-based investment advisor.
The company’s dominance in mobile money, connectivity, and enterprise solutions makes it a cornerstone of Kenya’s digital infrastructure. As such, changes in ownership dynamics carry broader economic implications.
Legal and Regulatory Outlook
Lawyers familiar with capital markets law note that allegations of “complicity” would require substantial evidence to sustain any formal legal challenge. For now, the dispute appears to be unfolding in the court of public opinion rather than in a courtroom.
Still, petitions or injunction applications cannot be ruled out if political pressure intensifies.
What Next?
The controversy comes at a time when the government is under pressure to manage public debt while preserving strategic national assets.
With Safaricom’s dividends forming a significant revenue stream for the state, the political sensitivity of the Sh244 billion figure is unlikely to fade quickly.
As calls for disclosure grow louder, the key question remains whether the proposed share deal represents a prudent fiscal strategy — or a restructuring that could permanently reshape control of Kenya’s digital giant.
For now, the accusations against Vodacom remain claims awaiting substantiation, but the political and market tremors they have sparked are already being felt across Kenya’s corporate and financial landscape.