BY SAM ALFAN.
Leading telco Safaricom has moved to court to block the release of information sought by an investigation journalist.
Journalist Robert Wanjala Kituyi sought information from the company on the number of court orders Safaricom received from police authorities between June 2024 and 31 October 2024 seeking personal data or communication details of individuals under investigation.
The journalist sought the information through the Commission of Administrative Justice (CAJ) after his requests, directly to Safaricom were declined.
However, Safaricom said in a suit to the High Court that it’s commercial interests were at risk as the information may be used to undermine its security measures, which it has put in place to secure customers data privacy, as well as compliance with data protection laws.
“The decision of the Commission on Administrative Justice dated 5 February 2025 be set aside and the orders issued be vacated or discharged,” seeks Safaricom.
Safaricom claims that by directing it to release the information, CAJ occasioned a miscarriage of justice to the telco.
Further, Safaricom said CAJ erred in law and in principle by acting without jurisdiction by admitting and determining a review initiated by Safaricom in violation of Section 14(2) of the Access to Information Act.
Safaricom added that CAJ erred in law by acting without jurisdiction by entertaining a review initiated by Safaricom when the company did not fall within the Ambit of Article 35(1)(b) of the Constitution as read together with Section 4(1)(b) of the of the Access to Information Act.
“The Commission on Administrative Justice erred in law and in principle by entertaining an application for review by Safaricom PLC and granting orders which in essence sought to enforce the provisions of Section 5 of the of the Access to Information Act, when such provisions did not apply to the Appellant, as a private entity,” argued Safaricom.
The company faulted the Commission by failing to consider and apply the provisions of section 6(b) of the Access to Information Act considering that the information sought would impede due process of the law.
Further , Safaricom claims that the commission failed to consider and apply the provisions of section 6(d) of the of the Access to Information Act as the information sought would of necessity involve the intrusion of the privacy of individuals.
“The Commission on Administrative Justice erred in law and in principle by failing to consider and apply the provisions of section 6(e) of the Access to Information Act as the information sought by the Respondent and which the Commission on Administrative Justice sought to enforce by its orders is information which will substantially undermine the Safaricom’s commercial interests as it includes measures which it has put in place to secure customer’s data privacy, as well as compliance with data protection laws, which information if revealed may be used to undermine the Appellant’s security measures,” Safaricom said in the suit.
According to the telco releasing the information as directed by CAJ would result in violating professional confidentiality as set out in the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act and other statutes.
