The tragic death of Albert Ojwang, a 31-year-old teacher and blogger, has raised serious questions about privacy, surveillance, and corporate accountability in Kenya.
Lawyer Willis Otieno was among the first to raise a red flag, asking on social media who accessed Ojwang’s phone records, GPS location, and social media before his arrest. Ojwang had been arrested on June 6, 2025, in Homa Bay after criticizing a top police officer. He died a day later in Nairobi police custody.
A post-mortem showed clear signs of assault, completely contradicting initial police claims that he had hit his head on a wall. The disturbing details have triggered public outrage, but what makes it worse is the silence and denial from Safaricom, Kenya’s biggest telecommunications company, which holds all the data that could explain how Ojwang was tracked and arrested.
Despite growing suspicion from Kenyans and multiple online calls for accountability, Safaricom has denied being involved in providing any data that led to Ojwang’s arrest. CEO Peter Ndegwa claimed that the company only learned about the incident through the media.
This explanation has not convinced the public. The Independent Policing Oversight Authority has already requested Safaricom’s call records for 17 phone numbers to assist in the ongoing investigation.
If Safaricom had no connection to the arrest, why are its records needed now? Either someone used their system to trace Ojwang, or someone within the company is not being honest.
This raises the possibility that either Safaricom willingly provided user data, or security agencies accessed it through secret arrangements that Safaricom is now denying.
There is also no public evidence confirming whether a lawful court warrant was issued to Safaricom or the National Intelligence Service to intercept Ojwang’s communications. Kenyan law requires such a warrant to monitor someone’s phone, track their movements, or access their social media. If no warrant was issued, then someone broke the law.
If a warrant was issued, Safaricom must admit they released the data. Instead, what we have are blanket denials from the company, even as suspicion builds that the data used to locate Ojwang had to come from somewhere.
Given past incidents of unlawful surveillance in Kenya, there’s growing fear that Safaricom could be enabling illegal monitoring either through negligence or cooperation.
This isn’t the first time Safaricom has been at the center of data privacy scandals. Earlier this year, the company was fined for mishandling customer data, and it has faced repeated accusations of exposing users to risks.
The claim that they did not know about the arrest until media coverage sounds more like public relations than truth. It is hard to believe that a company trusted with sensitive personal data has no system in place to flag or detect such requests from law enforcement.
Even if they did not release data directly in this case, they are still responsible for protecting it. Their infrastructure is what makes such arrests and surveillance possible.
By failing to account for how their system might have been used, Safaricom appears to be hiding behind legal loopholes while people suffer the consequences.
What happened to Albert Ojwang was brutal, and the blame cannot be placed on police alone. Any company that handles user data especially one as dominant as Safaricom must face full scrutiny when people are tracked, arrested, and killed.
Safaricom’s vague denials and lack of concrete explanations have eroded trust in its commitment to privacy. Until the truth comes out, the company must carry the weight of public suspicion.
Add Comment