Serious questions are now being raised over the management of hundreds of millions of shillings allocated to community projects under Safaricom Foundation, with Karen Basiye at the centre of calls for greater accountability.
As Safaricom’s Director of Sustainable Business and Social Impact, Basiye has oversight of the company’s social impact programmes, including Safaricom Foundation and M-Pesa Foundation, which have channelled significant resources into projects targeting some of Kenya’s most vulnerable communities.
The scale of the money involved makes the questions difficult to ignore. Since 2019, Safaricom Foundation has invested Sh271 million in more than 1,400 Ndoto Zetu projects, according to the information provided. In 2024, another Sh170 million was announced for similar community initiatives.
Beyond those programmes, millions more have gone towards medical bill support, schools, water projects and other interventions intended to improve lives in communities across the country.
The central concern is not whether such projects are necessary. They clearly are. The concern is whether every shilling allocated for them has been properly accounted for and whether the projects reported to the public are the same projects that were actually delivered.
Allegations have emerged that some projects appeared in official reports despite claims that they were incomplete or could not be found on the ground. There are also questions about procurement procedures and whether established rules were followed in awarding some contracts.
Claims have further been made that payments may have gone to entities whose connections to people within the Foundation should be examined.
Safaricom has also not publicly produced an audit proving that money was stolen under her watch. That distinction matters.
But the absence of a finding of guilt should not become an excuse for avoiding scrutiny.
The beneficiaries of Safaricom Foundation programmes are not abstract figures on a spreadsheet. They include children studying in schools with limited facilities, patients struggling to clear hospital bills, people living with disabilities and families depending on access to clean water. If money meant to help such people is surrounded by unanswered questions, the proper response should be investigation, transparency and accountability.
There are also claims concerning Basiye’s personal finances, including suggestions that her known income may not explain certain alleged foreign currency accounts and family investments.
At present, these claims have not been supported by publicly available bank records, property documents or other verifiable evidence. They should therefore not be treated as proof of wrongdoing.
If there is genuine concern about unexplained wealth or conflicts of interest, however, the answer is straightforward: conduct an independent forensic review. Such an investigation should have access to the relevant financial records and should report to a board committee that is independent of officials who may have been involved in the decisions under examination.
The reported tensions within the Foundation make the matter even more sensitive. There are claims that some officials want a full accountability process, while others may favour allowing Basiye to leave quietly through terminal leave instead of facing a formal investigation.
A quiet exit would not answer the questions.If there are concerns about projects, procurement, payments or conflicts of interest, those issues do not disappear because an executive leaves the organisation. Records still need to be examined. Contracts still need to be traced. Payments still need to be matched with actual work.
Projects still need to be physically verified.
Safaricom should therefore provide a clear account of Basiye’s current status. If she remains in office, the company should say so. If she is on leave, it should clarify that. If any departure is connected to the complaints being raised, the public deserves to know that as well, subject to applicable employment and privacy rules.
More importantly, Safaricom should publish a comprehensive record of the projects funded through the Foundation since 2019.
That record should show the location of each project, the amount allocated, the contractor involved, the completion status and the officials responsible for approval.
The company should also explain how projects were selected and whether political considerations influenced where funds were sent. Claims that some boreholes and other projects were directed to areas associated with politicians friendly to the national government deserve proper examination.
Corporate social responsibility should never become a political reward system, regardless of which party or politician benefits.
Safaricom has built a reputation around governance, compliance and accountability. The company has taken action against employees accused of fraud and other policy violations. That makes the current questions even more important.
Rules cannot be strict for junior employees and flexible for senior executives.
The same standards must apply at the top.
An independent investigation should examine contractor ownership, procurement records, possible conflicts of interest, project reports, payment trails and the actual condition of projects on the ground.
Add Comment