The Law Society of Kenya (LSK) has moved to the High Court in a landmark constitutional petition, alleging a massive and systemic conspiracy between the country’s leading telecommunications provider, Safaricom PLC, and state security agencies to illegally surveil, abduct, and prosecute Kenyan citizens.
The petition, filed in the Milimani Constitutional and Human Rights Division, comes in the wake of a bombshell judgment in Republic v. David Mokaya. That ruling exposed how police units allegedly bypassed judicial oversight to track protesters using real-time location data provided by Safaricom without a court order.
The core of the LSK’s case rests on the ordeal of David Ooga Mokaya, a student who was traced to Eldoret, arrested at dawn, and whisked to Nairobi in November 2024. The court later found that:
- Warrantless Access: Safaricom disclosed Mokaya’s identifying information and call records to the DCI based solely on a request letter, not a court order.
- Illegal Tracking: Police used “triangulation data” to pinpoint his location at a private residence.
- Due Process Failures: Devices were forensically examined without legal basis, and the suspect was held incommunicado.
The LSK argues that Mokaya’s case is merely the tip of the iceberg, representing a broader pattern of extra-legal surveillance used to suppress the Gen-Z protests between 2024 and 2025.
A significant portion of the petition takes aim at Safaricom PLC. The LSK alleges that while Safaricom’s leadership publicly assured subscribers that data is only shared via court orders, the reality was a clandestine pipeline of personal information flowing directly to the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI).
The Petitioner is now seeking constitutional punitive damages. Drawing parallels to a recent U.S. case where Verizon was fined $46.9 million for similar breaches, the LSK argues that Safaricom’s market dominance necessitates a higher duty of care and that penalties should be proportional to their annual turnover to ensure effective deterrence.
Key respondents & interested parties
The suit is expansive, naming 17 Respondents and 26 Interested Parties, including:
- State Actors: The Inspector General of Police, the DCI, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), and the National Forensic Lab.
- Corporate Entities: Safaricom PLC and Kenya Power (alleged to have facilitated home location tracking).
- Human Rights Watchdogs: Amnesty International, Katiba Institute, and the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (KNCHR).
- The Victim Protection Board: Proposed as the administrator for a Victims Compensation Fund.
The LSK contends that these actions have created a domino effect of constitutional violations, infringing on:
- Article 31: The right to privacy of communications.
- Article 49: The rights of arrested persons.
- Article 37: The right to peaceful assembly and protest.
“Where statutory mechanisms are inadequate for systemic violations, the High Court must fashion an effective deterrent,” the petition reads. “Sharing triangulation data is not an ordinary breach; it leads to abductions and the silencing of dissent.”
What the LSK is demanding
The Law Society is asking the High Court for a series of sweeping Structural Interdicts, including:
- A Victims Compensation Fund: Administered by the Victim Protection Board for all those whose data was illegally shared.
- Public Audit: A court-supervised audit of all data requests made by the DCI to Safaricom from June 2024 to December 2025.
- Public Apology: A formal apology from Safaricom and the Police, published in national newspapers for 14 consecutive days.
- Expungement: The immediate withdrawal of charges and destruction of digital evidence for any protester arrested via illegally obtained data.
The High Court is expected to mention the matter to give directions on the urgency of the conservatory orders sought.
You can find the court pleadings HERE.