By Andrew Kariuki
Safaricom PLC has firmly rejected a demand for Ksh 200 million in compensation by a university student who was acquitted in a high-profile cybercrime case, setting the stage for a major constitutional battle over data privacy and the role of telecommunications companies in criminal investigations.
David Ooga Mokaya, a student at Moi University, has filed a constitutional petition before the High Court in Nairobi, accusing Safaricom of unlawfully sharing his personal data with law enforcement agencies, which he claims led to his arrest, prosecution and prolonged trial.
Through his lawyers, Danstan Omari & Associates Advocates, Mokaya argues that the release of his mobile phone data without his consent violated his constitutional rights to privacy and protection of personal information.
The petition arises from Mokaya’s arrest in November 2024 over allegations that he had published false information on social media platform X (formerly Twitter), under the account “LANDLORD@bozgabi,” suggesting the death of President William Ruto.
He was subsequently charged in Milimani Law Courts in Criminal Case No. MCCR/E1161/2024, but was acquitted on February 19, 2026, after the court found that the prosecution had failed to prove its case.
In her ruling, Magistrate Caroline Nyaguthii held that key evidence relied upon by investigators had been obtained irregularly, raising concerns over the handling of digital data in criminal investigations.
Following his acquittal, Mokaya moved to court, claiming that his prosecution was built on data allegedly obtained from Safaricom without his knowledge or consent.
He maintains that the alleged unlawful sharing of his personal information subjected him to a full criminal trial, disrupted his education, and caused him significant financial and emotional distress.
In court filings, Mokaya states that he was forced to travel repeatedly from Eldoret to Nairobi to attend court proceedings, placing a heavy burden on both himself and his family.
“I have suffered immense violation of my rights from my arrest in November 2024 until my acquittal in February 2026,” he states in a supporting affidavit.
He further argues that had his private data not been shared, the charges against him would not have arisen.
The petitioner is seeking, among other orders, a declaration that his constitutional rights were violated, compensation for damages suffered, and court orders restraining Safaricom from disclosing personal data without consent or a valid court order.
However, Safaricom has strongly denied any wrongdoing.
In a response dated February 24, 2026, addressed to Mokaya’s lawyers, the telecommunications company rejected the demand for compensation, stating that the criminal court did not make any finding of civil liability against it.
“Safaricom does not admit, and expressly denies, any liability as alleged,” the company stated.
The firm further argued that its cooperation with law enforcement agencies does not automatically translate into constitutional liability.
“Observations in the judgment concerning investigative practices cannot be construed as imposing strict constitutional liability on a telecommunications provider acting in compliance with formal requests from law enforcement agencies,” the letter reads.
Safaricom also dismissed the demand for Ksh 200 million as “unequivocally rejected,” warning that it will vigorously defend itself in any litigation arising from the matter.
The company maintained that any suggestion that it acted unlawfully in providing data to investigators is “misconceived.”
Mokaya’s lawyers have certified the petition as urgent, arguing that the case raises critical constitutional questions on the protection of personal data and the need for clear safeguards when private information is shared with state agencies.
They contend that the matter goes beyond the individual case, warning that failure to address the issues raised could expose other Kenyans to similar violations.
“It is in the best interest of justice that this Honourable Court reasserts the place of private data and the need for consent before sharing personal information,” the application states.
The case is expected to test the limits of data privacy laws in Kenya, particularly in relation to cooperation between telecommunications providers and law enforcement agencies.
It also raises broader questions about accountability where digital evidence forms the basis of criminal prosecutions.
The High Court is now set to determine whether Safaricom can be held liable for the alleged breach of privacy and whether stronger legal safeguards are needed to protect citizens from unlawful data sharing.
