Safaricom has filed a suit at the High Court in an attempt to reverse an order issued by the Commission on Administrative Justice (CAJ) directing the mobile giant to release information that had been sought by a journalist which would have linked the company to enforced disappearances.
Robert Wanjala, wrote to Safaricom in November last year seeking to know how many court orders had been received by Safaricom from police authorities between June and October 2024 seeking personal data or communication details of individuals under investigation.
“What measures does Safaricom have in place to ensure that all requests for customer information comply with data protection laws and request user privacy?” Asked the journalist in a letter that we have been able to obtain plus other documents surrounding the matter.
“How does Safaricom handle cases where police court orders are ambigous or appear to overreach regarding customer privacy? Are there instances where such requests have been challenged or denied?” He asked.
Wanjala, who is also a student at the University of York in the United Kingdom, had sought these answers from Safaricom at the height of abductions and enforced disappearances in Kenya in the wake of widespread protests by Gen Z.
According to an article done by the Daily Nation, British company Neural Technologies had embedded Safaricom’s internal data management systems, giving Kenya’s security agencies unfeltered real-time access to Kenyans call data.
Wanjala was seeking answers from Safaricom, citing Chapter Six of the Access to Information Act, which provides for the right to access information held by public or private entities in the interest of accountability and transparency.
The mobile company, however, failed to respond to Wanjala’s questions. He then sought reprieve at CAJ which in turn ordered Safaricom to facilitate the journalist’s access to the information he was seeking as it is a matter of public concern.
This order was issued on February 5, and Safaricom was told to comply within 21 days or face unspecified consequences.
But instead of complying, Safaricom has now gone to the High Court to appeal CAJ’s ruling, which could trigger a legal conundrum should the journalist gain access to the information that he is looking for.
“CAJ erred in law and in principal by failing to consider and apply the provisions of Section 6 (B) of the Access to Information Act stating that the information sought by the respondent and which CAJ sought to enforce by its orders was information which would impede due process of the law,” Safaricom has argued in court.
“By making the orders which it did, CAJ occasioned a miscarriage of justice,” says Safaricom.
In January, the Kenya Commission of Human Rights and Independent Medico-Legal Unit called out Safaricom and other telecommunications companies over the alleged sharing of data in a manner that has compromised the security of Kenyans.
They accused Safaricom and other telcos of giving out contacts and locations of persons who are a target of harassment, abductions and forced disappearances.
“Safaricom and other telecommunications companies must immediately cease unlawful data-sharing practices. We demand an independent audit of corporate compliance with data protection laws and sanctions for violations,” said the activists.
Safaricom denied sharing customer data with the state without court orders.
