Lobby Groups Blast Media Council Over ‘Bias’ in Case Against Journalists Investigating Safaricom-Abduction Links

A coalition of prominent Kenyan lobby groups has sharply criticized the Media Council of Kenya’s Complaints Commission for what they call a biased decision to entertain a “baseless” complaint lodged by telecommunications giant Safaricom PLC against Nation Media Group (NMG) and its journalists.

The Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC), Katiba Institute, and Muslims for Human Rights (MUHURI) argue that the move threatens media freedom and shields Safaricom from accountability over its alleged role in facilitating human rights abuses.

The controversy stems from an explosive investigative report published by NMG in October 2024, which revealed how Safaricom routinely provides security agencies with access to suspects’ personal data.

The report suggested this practice may have enabled extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, and renditions—serious allegations that have rocked Kenya’s public discourse.

Journalists Namir Shabibi and Claire Lauterbach spearheaded the investigation, with follow-up stories pursued by colleagues Daniel Ogetta, Kepha Muiruri, and Evans Jaola.

Rather than addressing the allegations head-on, Safaricom has targeted the journalists and NMG with what the lobby groups describe as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP). On April 3, 2025, the Complaints Commission announced it had accepted Safaricom’s complaint and would launch a “full hearing into alleged unethical reporting.”

Among the company’s claims is that NMG failed to seek its comment prior to publication—a charge the lobby groups dismiss as demonstrably false.

They assert that the journalists sent Safaricom four detailed letters totaling 18 pages of allegations in the months before the story broke, and that the company’s evasive response was included in the final report.

“We are deeply troubled by the Commission’s assertion that Safaricom’s claims ‘raised credible concerns,’” the groups said in a joint statement.

“Safaricom’s actions are not in good faith, and its attempt to undermine the credibility of journalists who exposed its collaboration with security agencies must be seen for what it is—an effort to evade scrutiny.”

The lobby groups accuse Safaricom of deploying SLAPP tactics to intimidate journalists and deter further reporting on its alleged complicity in human rights violations.

They note that the company has yet to provide substantive evidence to support its complaint, suggesting the legal action is designed to exhaust the journalists through prolonged battles rather than address the core issues raised in the exposé.

Most damningly, Safaricom has not denied key allegations, including claims that it may have obstructed justice by providing tampered or incomplete call data records in cases of enforced disappearance.

The coalition also highlighted a related case in which Safaricom sued journalist Robert Wanjala Kituyi for simply requesting information about the number of court orders the company received from police between June and October 2024 seeking access to personal data.

Katiba Institute is representing Kituyi in that lawsuit, which the groups cite as further evidence of Safaricom’s efforts to suppress public-interest journalism.

“This is a clear pattern of intimidation,” the press release stated. “Safaricom is using its corporate might to silence those who dare to hold it accountable.”

The lobby groups have called on the Complaints Commission to dismiss Safaricom’s complaint outright and resist pressure from the telecom giant.

“The Commission must not allow powerful corporations to manipulate its processes to escape accountability,” they warned, urging the body to uphold media freedom and refer to NMG’s investigative report for clarity on the stakes involved.

Safaricom’s actions, the groups argue, raise critical questions: Why is the company resorting to legal maneuvers rather than addressing the allegations? And what might it be trying to hide? For now, the coalition insists the answer lies in the Nation’s reporting—evidence they say the Commission cannot ignore.

As the hearing looms, and with human rights and journalistic integrity on the line, all eyes are on the Media Council to see whether it will stand firm or bend to corporate influence.