Safaricom in the Crossfire: Allegations of Government Assistance in Quelling Kenya's Historic Gen Z Protests

The Uprising That Shook a Nation Between June 2024 and July 2025, Kenya witnessed its most significant youth-led uprising in decades. What began as protests against the Finance Bill 2024 evolved into a broader movement demanding accountability, good governance, and an end to police brutality. At the heart of this digital-age revolution stood Kenya's Gen Z—armed with smartphones, social media, and an unwavering determination to be heard. But as the protests intensified and the government's response grew more violent, Kenya's largest telecommunications company, Safaricom, found itself caught in an unprecedented controversy. Accusations emerged that the telecom giant had assisted authorities in suppressing the protests through internet disruptions, data sharing for surveillance, and enabling the tracking and abduction of protest leaders. The allegations have sparked a national debate about corporate responsibility, government power, and the role of technology companies in protecting—or violating—citizen rights during times of civil unrest. The Finance Bill That Ignited a Movement To understand Safaricom's role, we must first understand what sparked these historic protests. The Finance Bill 2024 proposed sweeping tax increases on essential goods and services as Kenya's government sought to address a spiraling national debt crisis and meet International Monetary Fund requirements. What the Bill Proposed The controversial legislation included taxes on bread, cooking oil, diapers, sanitary products, mobile money transfers, motor vehicles, financial services, and digital platforms. For a population already struggling with high inflation and a cost-of-living crisis, the bill represented what many young Kenyans called "taxation without jobs." The bill was part of Kenya's Medium-Term Revenue Strategy aimed at increasing the tax-to-GDP ratio from approximately thirteen and a half percent to at least twenty percent between 2024 and 2027. While the government justified these measures as necessary for fiscal responsibility, critics argued that ordinary Kenyans were being asked to shoulder the burden of government mismanagement and corruption. Gen Z Takes the Lead Unlike previous protests in Kenya, this movement was leaderless, tribeless, and organized almost entirely through social media platforms. Young activists mobilized using X, TikTok, and Instagram, circulating calls to action, translating the bill into local languages, and using artificial intelligence tools to answer questions about the legislation. The hashtags #RejectFinanceBill2024, #OccupyParliament, and #RutoMustGo trended nationwide as thousands of young Kenyans coordinated peaceful demonstrations. What made this movement unprecedented was its inclusivity—protesters came from all ethnic backgrounds, social classes, and regions, united by shared frustration with their economic circumstances and governance failures. The Violent Crackdown What began as peaceful demonstrations quickly descended into chaos as security forces responded with overwhelming force. The most violent day came on June 25, 2024, when protesters breached parliament after lawmakers voted to pass the Finance Bill despite massive public opposition. The Human Cost On June 25, 2024, clashes with police resulted in at least twenty-two deaths, with Amnesty International estimating that across both sets of protests, excessive use of force by security agencies resulted in at least 128 deaths, 3,000 arrests, and over 83 enforced disappearances. Among the dead were children, including a twelve-year-old girl struck by a stray bullet while watching television at home. Nearly all victims were under thirty years old. Medics reported close to three hundred people injured nationally, many with gunshot wounds from live ammunition fired by police. The violence shocked the nation and drew international condemnation. United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres urged Kenyan security forces to exercise restraint, while human rights organizations documented a pattern of excessive force, arbitrary arrests, and extrajudicial killings. Safaricom's Alleged Role: The Surveillance Claims As the protests intensified and prominent activists began disappearing, attention turned to how authorities were identifying and tracking protest leaders. Safaricom, which controls approximately sixty-five percent of Kenya's telecommunications market with a subscriber base of forty-seven million, faced mounting accusations of complicity. The Core Allegations Human rights defenders interviewed by Amnesty International believe that state surveillance was supported by Safaricom, one of Kenya's biggest telecommunications companies, allowing clandestine police units to track activists involved in the protests, with evidence pointing to many of them being subsequently forcibly disappeared. Activists claimed Safaricom was sharing customer call records and location data with state agencies, enabling authorities to: Track the movements of protest organizers in real-time Identify individuals coordinating demonstrations through calls and messages Monitor social media activity linked to specific phone numbers Facilitate targeted abductions of vocal critics The allegations gained traction after several high-profile cases where activists reported being tracked to their locations and subsequently abducted. Some government critics publicly shared that they had abandoned their Safaricom lines to avoid surveillance, urging other Kenyans to do the same. The Abduction Crisis Kenya's National Commission on Human Rights reported more than eighty cases of abductions and forced disappearances since the youth-led anti-government protests that rocked major cities between June and August 2024. Five men who disappeared shortly before the Christmas holidays—including cartoonist Gideon Kibet, known for satirical depictions of President William Ruto, and twenty-four-year-old Billy Mwangi, who had shared AI-generated images of Ruto in a funeral casket—were found alive days later. While the government denied involvement and claimed the cases were under investigation, the pattern of disappearances targeting online critics fueled suspicions about tech-enabled surveillance. The Internet Disruption Controversy Beyond surveillance allegations, Safaricom faced accusations of deliberately disrupting internet access during critical moments of the protests to hinder coordination and limit documentation of police violence. June 25: When the Internet Slowed On the evening of June 25, 2024, as protesters occupied parliament and police responded with lethal force, internet connectivity across Kenya suddenly degraded. Safaricom claimed the disruption resulted from the loss of some undersea fiber capacity, attributing it to technical issues with submarine cables. However, this explanation was met with widespread skepticism. Global internet observatory Netblocks stated there was no physical subsea cable damage yet identified, and that the impact of the disruption was higher than had been observed during past cable cuts. VPN Usage Spikes Proton VPN reported a significant increase in the use of virtual private networks in Kenya, identifying a twelve hundred percent spike in signups above normal levels following reports that the government was limiting internet access. This dramatic surge suggested many Kenyans believed the disruption was deliberate rather than coincidental. The timing raised particular concerns—the slowdown occurred precisely when protesters were livestreaming police violence and coordinating responses to the crackdown, potentially limiting their ability to document abuses and organize safety measures. Safaricom's Response and Denials Throughout the controversy, Safaricom has consistently denied the allegations against it, maintaining that it operates within legal frameworks and respects customer privacy. Official Statements on Data Sharing Safaricom stated that it respects the privacy of its customers and maintained that it has not shared any customer information with government agencies, adding that any such directive can only be issued through a court order. In response to the surveillance allegations, Safaricom said it only shares customer data through lawful means and for lawful purposes, confirming that their systems are not designed to track the live location of any subscriber, and such functionality does not exist within their operational architecture. The Undersea Cable Explanation Regarding the June 25 internet disruption, Safaricom said an outage on two of its undersea cables caused the downtime, adding that it had activated redundancy measures to minimize interruptions. The company provided technical details about cable cuts and maintained that the issue was infrastructure-related rather than deliberate throttling. Navigating Government Ownership Complicating Safaricom's position is its ownership structure. The government of Kenya owns a thirty-five percent stake in Safaricom, with Vodacom and Vodafone owning a combined forty percent, and retail investors owning twenty-five percent of the company. This significant government ownership raises questions about the company's independence and its ability to resist pressure from state authorities, even when such pressure might violate customer rights or enable human rights abuses. The Celebrity and Influencer Boycott As allegations mounted, public figures who had previously partnered with Safaricom began severing ties with the company in solidarity with the protest movement. High-Profile Departures More than ten social media influencers and entertainment artists alleged Safaricom purposely thwarted social media communications when Kenyan police fired live ammunition and used tear gas on protesters, with at least thirty people dying in the unrest according to Kenya's rights watchdog. Celebrity chef Dennis Ombachi publicly announced he had quit working with Safaricom, stating that the company's values and his were no longer aligned. Musicians announced they would pull their work from Safaricom's Skiza tune platform—the personalized ringback tone service that generates significant income for artists—in solidarity with the movement. The #BoycottSafaricom Campaign Kenyans took to social media with calls to boycott Safaricom products and services. The campaign gained substantial traction, with many switching to alternative providers or reducing their usage of Safaricom services. The bold move by influencers and artists pointed to deep resistance to any role corporates appeared to play in aiding government censorship. For Safaricom, the boycott represented a significant threat. With more than half of Kenya's GDP flowing through its M-Pesa mobile money platform annually, any substantial reduction in customer trust or usage could have profound financial implications. Safaricom's Humanitarian Response Amid the controversy over its alleged role in surveillance and internet disruption, Safaricom also made significant donations to support victims of the protests—a move that drew mixed reactions. The KSh 50 Million Donation Safaricom offered fifty million shillings in donations to support victims of anti-budget protests and bolster hospital infrastructure. At Kenyatta National Hospital, Safaricom and M-PESA Foundations made a fifteen million shilling donation, with ten million going to the hospital's Disaster Response Centre and five million towards supporting those injured and admitted. The five million shilling allocation covered provision of assistive devices for the injured, smartphones and airtime for those who lost their phones, three months' worth of food, and one year's rent for individuals in extreme condition. Safaricom allocated an additional 12.5 million shillings for similar efforts across the country. Medical Camps in Affected Areas Through its M-Pesa Foundation, Safaricom organized medical camps in affected areas, starting with Githurai followed by Rongai, providing healthcare services to communities impacted by the violence. Public Reaction to the Donations The donations generated mixed responses. While some appreciated the humanitarian gesture, critics viewed it as an attempt at damage control or "blood money" that couldn't compensate for the company's alleged role in enabling state repression. The timing—announced shortly after the most violent clashes—fueled suspicions that Safaricom was trying to rehabilitate its public image. The Broader Tech-Facilitated Repression Safaricom's alleged involvement is part of a larger pattern of technology being weaponized to suppress dissent in Kenya, according to human rights organizations. State-Sponsored Troll Networks Amnesty International's research proves that digital campaigns against protesters were driven by state-sponsored trolls, individuals and a network of people paid to promote and amplify pro-government messages with the aim of reaching Kenya's top daily trends on X. These coordinated campaigns used mass-posting of identical messages repeatedly to manipulate platform algorithms and maximize visibility of government-sponsored narratives. The networks deployed disinformation, smear campaigns, and targeted harassment against prominent activists. Targeting Specific Activists Prominent journalist Hanifa Adan, a human rights defender of Somali descent, became a prime target. She was described in social media posts as a foreigner, a fool, and a Somali terrorist. The attacks intensified after she gave an interview for BBC's documentary investigating the shooting of protesters and alleged military involvement. "Having strangers say things about you every single day, being targeted every single day, it's hard. It took away the spark, the joy. It took away who I was," Adan told Amnesty International. The #ToxicActivists Campaign In April 2025, suspected state-supported trolls launched the #ToxicActivists campaign to discredit protest leaders, using Islamophobic, racist, and false narratives to undermine their credibility and silence dissent. The coordinated attacks represented a systematic attempt to delegitimize the protest movement and discourage participation. Government Threats to Media The tech-facilitated repression extended beyond telecommunications to traditional media outlets covering the protests. Standard Group's KTN reported that the government had threatened to shut them down during their live coverage, though the media house did not detail the specific office or individual who had made the threat. This intimidation attempt echoed Kenya's 2018 shutdown of three local television stations that attempted to air an opposition politician's swearing-in ceremony. The threats against KTN demonstrated the government's multi-pronged approach to controlling the narrative around the protests, targeting both digital platforms and traditional media simultaneously. The Legal and Ethical Framework Understanding whether Safaricom violated any obligations requires examining the legal and ethical frameworks governing telecommunications companies in Kenya. Data Protection Laws Kenya's Data Protection Act establishes requirements for how companies handle personal information. Under the law, telecommunications companies must: Obtain consent before collecting and processing personal data Protect data from unauthorized access or disclosure Only share data with third parties under specific lawful circumstances Maintain transparency about data collection and usage practices The law allows data sharing with government authorities only through proper legal channels, typically requiring court orders or other judicial oversight mechanisms. Constitutional Rights Kenya's Constitution guarantees citizens' rights to privacy, freedom of expression, and peaceful assembly. Any corporate actions that facilitate violations of these constitutional protections could potentially be challenged, even if technically conducted under government directives. Corporate Responsibility Standards International standards on business and human rights, including the UN Guiding Principles, establish that companies have a responsibility to respect human rights and avoid complicity in abuses—even when operating under government pressure. Telecommunications companies face particular scrutiny given their essential role in enabling communication, organization, and documentation during protests. Their cooperation with or resistance to government overreach can significantly impact the exercise of fundamental rights. Comparative Context: Telcos and Protests Globally Safaricom's situation mirrors challenges faced by telecommunications companies worldwide when governments seek their assistance in monitoring or suppressing dissent. The Global Pattern During protests and political unrest in countries including Iran, Myanmar, Belarus, and Ethiopia, telecommunications companies have faced similar pressures from authorities seeking to disrupt communications, access user data, or identify protest organizers. Some companies have resisted government demands, accepting sanctions or operational restrictions rather than compromising customer privacy. Others have complied, either voluntarily or under legal compulsion, drawing criticism from rights organizations and facing boycotts from civil society. The Starlink Alternative The controversy has accelerated interest in alternative connectivity options less vulnerable to government control. Following uproar over internet disruptions, SpaceX founder Elon Musk announced that Starlink Mini would be available at about half the standard terminal price later in 2024. Data shows Kenya's satellite internet uptake grew by sixty-four percent in the first quarter of 2024 with Starlink's entry, as many Kenyans searched for affordable alternatives proof against disruption by authorities. This trend suggests that government-linked telecommunications companies may face increasing competition from satellite-based services beyond state control. The Path Forward: Accountability and Reform As Kenya continues processing the trauma of the protests and their violent suppression, questions about accountability remain urgent. Calls for Investigation Human rights organizations have called for thorough, independent investigations into: The deaths and injuries of protesters Enforced disappearances and abductions Allegations of telecommunications-assisted surveillance Internet disruptions during critical moments The role of state-sponsored troll networks Amnesty International specifically calls on the Kenyan government to stop tech-facilitated state violence against peaceful protesters and civil society organizations, halt troll campaigns and smear narratives, and launch comprehensive investigations into surveillance practices. Corporate Transparency Activists demand that Safaricom and other telecommunications companies provide greater transparency about their interactions with government authorities, including: Publishing data on government requests for customer information Disclosing any directives received regarding network disruptions Implementing stronger safeguards for customer privacy Establishing clear policies for resisting unlawful government demands Regulatory Reforms The controversy highlights the need for stronger regulatory frameworks that: Establish clear limits on government surveillance capabilities Require judicial oversight for data sharing requests Protect telecommunications companies from being compelled to violate customer rights Create accountability mechanisms for tech-facilitated human rights abuses Balance national security concerns with civil liberties protections The Movement Continues Despite the violence and repression, Kenya's Gen Z protesters remain undeterred. The movement has demonstrated remarkable resilience, with demonstrations continuing more than a year after the initial Finance Bill protests. Ongoing Demands The protesters' demands have evolved beyond rejection of specific legislation to encompass broader governance reforms: Accountability for those responsible for protest deaths and disappearances An end to police brutality and extrajudicial killings Investigation and prosecution of corrupt officials Meaningful economic reforms that address youth unemployment Protection of constitutional rights and democratic freedoms The June 25, 2025 Commemoration Families of fallen Gen Z victims sought permission to hold peaceful processions on June 25, 2025—exactly one year after the Parliament storming—to commemorate those killed. They planned to lay flowers outside Parliament and deliver a memorandum highlighting what went wrong, calling for investigations and proposing measures to prevent similar tragedies. Despite government statements that June 25 would be a normal working day, the families and activists remained committed to honoring those who died fighting for a better Kenya. Lessons for Corporate Responsibility The Safaricom controversy offers critical lessons for corporations navigating politically volatile environments. The Importance of Proactive Principles Companies must establish clear human rights policies before crises emerge, creating internal frameworks for evaluating and responding to government demands that might compromise customer rights or enable abuses. The Cost of Perceived Complicity Even if Safaricom's denials are accurate and the company did nothing improper, the perception of complicity with an oppressive response to peaceful protests has damaged its reputation and bottom line. In the digital age, corporate brands can be severely impacted by associations with government repression. Transparency as Protection Greater transparency about government requests and company responses could help telecommunications companies demonstrate their commitment to customer rights while providing accountability when they face unlawful pressure. Conclusion: A Nation at a Crossroads The intersection of Safaricom, Kenya's government, and the Gen Z protests represents more than a corporate controversy—it reflects fundamental questions about power, technology, and democracy in contemporary Africa. As Kenya's young people continue demanding accountability and reform, the role of technology companies in either enabling or resisting state repression will remain scrutinized. Whether Safaricom aided government efforts to quell protests through surveillance and internet disruption, or was falsely accused while attempting to operate within legal constraints, the controversy has permanently altered the relationship between Kenya's largest telecommunications company and millions of its customers. The protests demonstrated that Kenya's youth are organized, determined, and unwilling to accept business as usual. They've shown that social media can enable unprecedented coordination despite attempts at disruption, and that movements built on shared grievances rather than ethnic or political alignments can transcend traditional divisions. For Safaricom and other corporations operating in politically sensitive environments, the lesson is clear: in an era where technology enables both liberation and oppression, neutrality is impossible. Companies must choose whether to stand with citizens' rights or enable their violation—and that choice will define their legacy. The Gen Z protests may have been met with violence, surveillance, and propaganda, but they also revealed the power of a connected generation refusing to be silenced. As one young protester told Reuters: "We can't feed our families, so we have to be on the street to stop the increasing prices, to stop the abductions, and to stand up for our country." That determination, amplified by technology and resistant to suppression, represents Kenya's future—and Safaricom must decide what role it will play in shaping that future.