Wiper Party leader Kalonzo Musyoka has criticised the government's decision to proceed with the sale of its 15 percent stake in Safaricom PLC to Vodacom, arguing that the transaction was finalised before the High Court delivered its judgment on a constitutional petition challenging the deal.
In a statement issued on Friday, Kalonzo said the National Treasury completed the sale despite the petition having already been fully heard and awaiting judgment, which he noted is expected within the next two weeks.
He argued that concluding the transaction before the court's determination raises constitutional concerns, saying the High Court had twice found sufficient grounds to issue conservatory orders halting the sale pending the hearing and determination of the case.
Kalonzo notes that it was troubling that the government moved swiftly to conclude the transaction after the Court of Appeal lifted conservatory orders on June 26, arguing that the constitutional issues surrounding the sale had not been resolved.
"The Court of Appeal did not declare this transaction lawful. It did not determine whether Kenyans were properly consulted. It did not determine whether Safaricom was fairly valued. It did not determine whether the Government can lawfully sell a strategic national asset merely to raise short-term revenue. The Court of Appeal only dealt with the question of conservatory orders."
He questioned why the government did not wait for the High Court to deliver its judgment before completing the transaction, saying the move undermined confidence in constitutional litigation.
Describing Safaricom as a strategic national asset, the Wiper leaders argued that the telecommunications company plays a central role in Kenya's digital economy through its communications infrastructure and mobile money platform.
He further claimed the sale was undervalued, stating that approximately six billion shares were sold at Sh34 per share, reducing the government's stake from 35 percent to 20 percent while increasing Vodacom's ownership to about 55 per cent.
According to the opposition principal, "We maintain that this sale was undervalued, opaque, rushed, and constitutionally suspect."
Moving further, Kalonzo also questioned the timing of the transaction in relation to the company's dividend payout, arguing that the government had surrendered a significant source of annual income.
"Why give up billions in future annual public income, year after year, for a one-off upfront payment equivalent to only about two years of annual dividends? Why rush to give up a strong long-term income stream for a short-term cash receipt?"
While saying he would respect the courts, the leader insisted that the constitutional and public-interest questions surrounding the transaction remained unresolved and warned that further legal action could follow.
"We respect the courts and we will await the High Court's determination of the matter. We also reserve every legal, constitutional, and public-interest avenue available to challenge this transaction and to protect the wealth of the Kenyan people."