National security dominated deliberations in Parliament on Tuesday as the government moved to justify plans to reduce its stake in Safaricom PLC, amid fears that the sale could weaken State control over Kenya’s most strategic telecommunications asset.
- •Appearing before a parliamentary committee, National Treasury Cabinet Secretary John Mbadi said the proposal to offload up to 15% of the State’s shareholding does not compromise national security.
- •The government argues that Safaricom’s role in Kenya’s communications, financial and data infrastructure is protected through law, regulation and oversight — not ownership.
- •The proposed divestiture, he said, forms part of broader parliamentary discussions on how the government can unlock value from State assets while preserving security, sovereignty and effective regulation in strategic sectors of the economy.
“Safaricom is a strategic company, yes, but security is not enforced through shareholding,” CS Mbadi said. “It is enforced through regulation, and those regulatory safeguards remain fully intact.”
The CS said Safaricom’s listing at the Nairobi Securities Exchange in 2008 deliberately diversified ownership while keeping the company firmly under Kenyan jurisdiction. He noted that even as ownership broadened, the State retained its security grip through regulatory agencies and national laws governing telecommunications, data protection and financial systems.
Mbadi told MPs that Safaricom’s expansion into Ethiopia in 2022, following licensing in 2021, has placed additional financial demands on the company, with the new operation yet to break even and continuing to require shareholder support.
“The Ethiopia business is still loss-making. Supporting it is a commercial decision, but it does not dilute Kenya’s security controls over Safaricom’s core operations,” he said.
Mbadi said concerns about foreign ownership should be separated from security considerations, noting that technical and management expertise provided by the Vodacom, a subsidiary of UK-based Vodafone, has been central to Safaricom’s success without undermining State authority.
“Even when the government held about 35 per cent, we did not use board membership to control Safaricom,” Mbadi said. “Security decisions are made by regulators, not shareholders.”
He cited the Covid-19 period, when mobile money charges were reduced, to illustrate the point. The intervention, he said, was directed by the Central Bank of Kenya in the public interest, not by the National Treasury as a shareholder.
Mbadi emphasised that Safaricom remains incorporated in Kenya, is run by Kenyan management and operates under constant oversight from multiple State agencies, including the Communications Authority of Kenya, the Central Bank of Kenya, the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner, the Competition Authority of Kenya and national security organs.
“These institutions regulate networks, data flows, mobile money, consumer protection and competition. That is where security resides,” he said.
“If zero ownership does not compromise security at Airtel, how does reducing Safaricom by 15 per cent suddenly become a threat?” he posed.
He added that Kenya’s communications sector is among the most tightly regulated in the region, with clear separation between commercial ownership and security oversight. According to Mbadi, this structure ensures that even changes in shareholding do not translate into loss of State control.
