Wiper Party leader Kalonzo Musyoka has moved to court to block the government planned sale of its 15% stake in Safaricom PLC to South Africa Vodacom Group, describing the transaction as unconstitutional and against public interest.
In a petition filed at the High Court, Kalonzo is seeking conservatory orders to halt the proposed sale pending a full hearing and determination of the case. He argues that allowing the process to proceed before judicial review risks causing irreversible harm.
The opposition leader says the planned disposal of the government shareholding raises serious legal and constitutional questions, particularly on how public assets are managed and transferred.
Kalonzo contends that the transaction violates constitutional safeguards governing the management of public resources. He cites Article 209, arguing that it limits the disposal of state assets without strict accountability and proper oversight mechanisms.
He further claims that the process did not meet the required standards of transparency and openness expected in transactions involving strategic national investments.
Public participation and accountability concerns
A key issue raised in the petition is the alleged lack of public participation. Kalonzo argues that the government failed to meaningfully involve citizens and key institutions as required under Article 10 of the Constitution.
According to the court documents, Parliament and other stakeholders were not adequately consulted before the decision to proceed with the proposed sale was made. He says such exclusion undermines the legitimacy of the process and raises questions about compliance with constitutional principles.
Through his lawyer Vincent Lempaa, Kalonzo states that the process leading to the proposed transaction was opaque and did not meet the standards of good governance. He argues that principles such as integrity, accountability and public involvement were not sufficiently upheld.
The petition also raises concerns about the clarity of negotiations surrounding the deal. Kalonzo questions whether full disclosure has been made regarding the terms of the transaction, warning that lack of transparency could expose the country to potential loss of public wealth.
He maintains that the case meets the legal threshold required for the court to issue conservatory orders. These include the need to protect constitutional values, safeguard public interest and prevent irreversible consequences if the transaction proceeds before the case is heard.
Kalonzo argues that allowing the sale to go on would render the court process ineffective if the transaction is later found to be unconstitutional. He is urging the court to preserve the current status quo until the matter is fully determined.
The case is expected to test the legal and constitutional framework governing state investments and the disposal of public assets. It may also set a precedent on how similar transactions are handled in the future.
Kalonzo insists that public interest must take precedence over commercial considerations, particularly in decisions involving strategic national assets such as Safaricom.
