Recent reports against Safaricom PLC have sparked a major human rights controversy, with the Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC) and Muslims for Human Rights (MUHURI) accusing the telecom giant of severe privacy violations.
These groups allege that Safaricom provided Kenyan security forces with unfettered access to sensitive customer data, facilitating a range of unlawful practices including enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, and renditions.
Despite repeated denials from Safaricom, the disturbing claims have drawn attention to the company’s role in enabling potentially unlawful surveillance and undermining justice.
One of the most alarming allegations involves Safaricom’s alleged handing over of Call Data Records (CDRs) and other critical consumer information to law enforcement agencies without sufficient safeguards.
Investigations suggest that in some cases, the data provided was incomplete or manipulated, potentially frustrating the course of justice in cases related to state crimes such as enforced disappearances.
The involvement of police officers often the very subjects of these investigations raises serious concerns, as it allegedly allowed these officers to handle evidence related to their own misconduct.
Safaricom has been accused of enabling these cover-ups, protecting perpetrators rather than the victims.
Further complicating the situation is Safaricom’s reported collaboration with Neural Technologies, a UK-based company that developed software designed for predictive profiling and real-time tracking of individuals.
While Safaricom has claimed that this technology was intended for fraud management, investigative reports suggest that it may have been misused for unauthorized surveillance by security forces.
Critics argue that such technology poses a direct violation of customer privacy, enabling widespread monitoring of individuals without their consent.
This is particularly concerning given Kenya’s history of human rights violations by law enforcement, where the abuse of power has been a persistent issue.
Safaricom has consistently denied these allegations, emphasizing its compliance with Kenyan data protection laws and asserting that it only shares customer information when required by court orders.
The company has also highlighted its ISO 27701 certification, which it claims demonstrates its commitment to data privacy and security.
However, these assurances have failed to address the serious concerns raised by investigative reports, particularly regarding the inconsistencies in court-submitted data.
Safaricom has not provided adequate explanations for discrepancies in its records or clarified the extent of its cooperation with security agencies, further deepening skepticism.
The controversy surrounding Safaricom underscores broader issues related to privacy and accountability in Kenya, especially in a country where telecommunications companies hold vast amounts of personal data.
Rights organizations have called for independent investigations into Safaricom’s practices and the need for stronger regulatory frameworks to prevent telecom providers from becoming complicit in human rights abuses.
The consequences could be far-reaching, setting a dangerous precedent for data misuse and the erosion of privacy rights in Kenya.
These developments highlight the urgent need for robust data protection policies and stronger oversight mechanisms to protect citizens from potential state overreach.
Safaricom’s transparency in addressing these allegations will be crucial in determining whether it can regain public trust.
Given the company’s central role in the Kenyan telecommunications sector, its actions or lack thereof could serve as a test case for how other corporations handle privacy and human rights concerns in the digital age.
The current investigation and calls for reform stress the importance of ensuring that telecom providers operate with the highest standards of accountability, protecting the privacy and rights of their customers.
Add Comment