Kituo Cha Sheria Accused Of Being A Proxy Of Safaricom In Suit Against Starlink To Advance Its Monopoly

A company associated with a wealthy city lawyer has sought to join a case seeking to stop Safaricom and industry regulator from blocking Starlink from entering the Kenyan market by providing satellite internet services.

Goodweek Inter-Services limited want to be enjoined in the case filed by Kituo Cha Sheria as an interested party.

The company argues arguing that the case has been instituted by Kituo Cha Sheria as a proxy of Safaricom.

According to the dealer, the case has been filed with the sole and impermissible purpose of corrupting the commercial and regulatory landscape and to retain and sustain an altogether impermissible monopolistic control of the telecommunication market in Kenya by Safaricom.

“It is just and fair that the Applicant is allowed to be joined as an interested party in this Petition,” Goodweek Inter-Services ltd urged the court.

The company said there has been a consistent pattern that any threat to the dominance of Safaricom triggers a perverse scheme in which Kituo is co-opted to block the threat.

“This is what happened to Equity Bank’s thin-sim-card revolutionary technology that was going to obliterate Mpesa. Kituo was conscripted by Safaricom to lodge a surrogate suit to block the introduction of Equity Bank’s revolutionary technology with Kituo deploying Stalingrad tactics to delay the implementation of the said technology for more than year for the benefit of Safaricom,” says Goodweek Inter-Services ltd in court documents.

The company adds that Safaricom’s lawyers managed, advised, monitored and supervised Kituo’s ‘surrogate’ suit in that particular instance including extracting and collecting the court orders issued against Equity Bank.

“The details of this unholy alliance between Safaricom and Kituo are detailed in a prior suit before this Court being Constitutional Human Rights Division Petition No. E299 of 2024 Goodweek Inter-Services Limited vs Safaricom PLC & 3 Others which was filed on 21st June 2024, way before the current suit,” the firm said.

The company said the fact that Safaricom deployed Kituo Cha Sheria in the case whilst it was fighting the said prior suit speaks to the consistency and the deployment of Kituo as the go to surrogate of Safaricom.

“These Safaricom surrogate suits are never intended to succeed (and ultimately never succeed) but are designed to deflect, forestall and frustrate market disruptions to Safaricom’s dominance, as the outcomes of the surrogates suits eventually and eminently confirm,” company stated in it court documents.

The company said Kituo invariably only litigates on matters related and beneficial to Safaricom in the telecommunication sector and not otherwise.

“In this current surrogate suit, it is intended for the matter to be referred to the 2nd and 3rd Respondent, which are under the total and complete control of Safaricom’s pervasive influence capture of Safaricom and which are guaranteed to produce a result favourable to Safaricom, without Safaricom appearing to be the prime mover of the process. This is the case made out in the prior said suit of HCCHR Petition No. E299 of 2024-Goodweek Inter-Services Limited vs Safaricom PLC & 3 Others,” state Goodweek Inter-Services ltd.

It is the firm’s argument that fearing the possibility of antagonising Starlink Limited and its owner Elon Musk, Safaricom has created a pretended “plausible deniability” defence through the surrogate petition.

“This surrogate suit is certain to explode a major conflict between the government of the United States of America and the Government of Kenya in the subsisting trade negotiations between the two countries, to the prejudice of the people of Kenya. Safaricom does not care about this consequence,” the company further state in the court documents.

According to Goodweek Inter-Services ltd, the conduct of Safaricom will attract the attention of the United States Securities Exchange Commission [“SEC”] and sanctions will flow from this racketeering scheme which is an offence under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

The conduct of Safaricom in the perpetuation of its monopolistic practices is the subject matter of the aforesaid HCCHR Petition No. E299 of 2024 Goodweek Inter-Services Limited vs Safaricom PLC & 3 Others.

“The illegal, corrupt, and anti-Kenya conduct of Safaricom ought to be investigated in the same suit as opposed to having several processes investigating the pervasive influence of Safaricom,” adds the company.

It further state that the bastardisation of Kituo is against the constitutive instruments of this erstwhile advocacy organisation, a betrayal of the founding fathers of the organisation amongst whom are prominent jurists.

The company application is supported with affidavit sworn by Head of Administration Salmon Ogwel who adds that Kituo invariably only litigates on matters related to and advantageous to Safaricom in the telecommunication sector and not otherwise.

“In this current surrogate suit, it is intended for the matter to be referred to Communication Authority of Kenya and Competition Authority of Kenya, which are under the total and complete control of Safaricom’s pervasive influence and “regulatory capture” and which are guaranteed to produce a result favourable to Safaricom, without Safaricom appearing to be the prime mover of the process. This is the case made out in our earlier Petition which was filed prior to the Petition herein,”says Ogwel company head administrator.

Ogwel further adds that the pretended posture of the current petition positing the view that it has been brought in order to protect the Kenyan public against Safaricom’s attempt to block the continued provision of services by Starlink is but a known strategic ruse. A stay (pending regulatory hearings and determination) is the clear intent of the Petitioner and its master, Safaricom.