Nairobi — Petitioners challenging the Government's proposed sale of a 15 per cent stake in Safaricom PLC have urged the High Court to declare the transaction unconstitutional, arguing that it amounts to the unlawful disposal of a strategic national asset.

In submissions filed before the Constitutional and Human Rights Division of the High Court, the petitioners, led by Kalonzo Musyoka and Lempaa Suyiaka, argued that the National Treasury lacks constitutional authority to raise revenue through the sale of public assets.

They told the court that the Constitution only permits the national government to generate revenue through taxation, levies, charges and borrowing, and not by disposing of public investments.

The petition was filed by Tony Gachoka, Prof. Fredrick Onyango Ogola, Paul Maina Mugo and Samuel Kahara Macharia, who are seeking orders to stop the planned divestiture of the Government's shares in Safaricom in favour of the Vodacom Group.

Keep up with the latest headlines on WhatsApp | LinkedIn

According to the petitioners, the transaction would reduce the Government of Kenya's shareholding in Safaricom from 35 per cent to 20 per cent while increasing Vodacom's effective ownership to approximately 55 per cent.

They argued that the move would effectively hand majority control of Kenya's largest telecommunications company to a foreign-linked entity.

The petitioners further submitted that Safaricom is not an ordinary commercial enterprise but a strategic national infrastructure platform that supports key government operations, including digital payments, delivery of public services and transmission of election results.

They also challenged the proposed sale price of KSh34 per share, claiming it significantly undervalues the government's stake and could expose the public to losses worth billions of shillings.

The petitioners argued that the proposed transfer of control raises broader concerns relating to national sovereignty, data governance, public trust, national security and competition policy.

They maintained that the intended transaction violates several constitutional provisions, including Articles 1, 10, 35, 73, 75, 201, 227, 232 and 238 of the Constitution.

The petitioners are now seeking court orders to halt the planned sale pending determination of the case.