Safaricom Dragged to Court in Ojwang’s Death Probe

Telecommunications giant faces legal action as IPOA seeks phone records in blogger’s murder investigation

NAIROBI, June 14, 2025 — Kenya’s largest telecommunications provider, Safaricom, finds itself at the center of a legal battle following the death of blogger Albert Omondi Ojwang, with the Independent Policing Oversight Authority (IPOA) moving to court to compel the company to release crucial phone records.

IPOA has filed an application seeking orders to force Safaricom to provide access to phone numbers allegedly connected to persons involved in Ojwang’s killing over the weekend.

The authority wants investigator Abdirahman Jibril authorized to access account opening details, registered subscribers, call data records, and travel patterns for 17 specific phone numbers.

The requested data covers the critical period between June 4, 2025, from 5:00 a.m., to June 8, 2025, up to midnight — timeframes investigators believe are crucial to understanding the circumstances surrounding the 31-year-old social media commentator’s death.

According to court papers, IPOA is investigating Ojwang’s death in custody under Section 203 of the Penal Code, exercising its statutory mandate under the Independent Policing Oversight Authority Act.

The authority argues that Safaricom holds “crucial information and documentation that will significantly aid in ensuring a comprehensive, impartial, and conclusive investigation into this incident.”

The application specifically requests that Safaricom nominate an authorized officer to issue a Certificate of Production of Electronic Evidence, as required under Section 106B(4) of the Evidence Act, to ensure the admissibility of any electronically generated evidence in legal proceedings.

IPOA maintains that the requested information will help identify registered users of the listed phone numbers and analyze their communication and movement patterns during the period under investigation.

The legal action comes amid mounting pressure on Safaricom, which has vehemently denied any involvement in Ojwang’s arrest and subsequent death.

In a statement issued by CEO Peter Ndegwa on Wednesday, the telecommunications giant expressed “deep concern” over allegations linking the company to the controversial case.

“At no point was there any contact between Safaricom and any security agency in investigating or arresting the late Albert,” Ndegwa stated categorically, adding that the company only learned of the arrest through media reports.

The company’s denial follows accusations from former Attorney General Justin Muturi, who alleged that Safaricom was “complicit and a facilitator in the tracing and abduction of Kenyans” and threatened legal action or service boycotts against the company.

The Communications Authority of Kenya has also distanced itself from the controversy, dismissing as “factually erroneous” claims circulating on social media that it provided location data to law enforcement agencies.

“CA is a regulator and does NOT have access to real-time location data of mobile subscribers,” the authority clarified, emphasizing that any data requests from security agencies must be legally sanctioned through court orders or lawful processes.

Ojwang’s death has been ruled a murder following an autopsy report that dismissed initial police claims of suicide.

The case has sparked national outrage and renewed concerns about extrajudicial killings in Kenya, with rights groups and opposition politicians demanding accountability.

A police officer has already been arrested in connection with the murder and is being held in custody until June 20, as investigations continue into what many view as another case of police brutality.

The court is expected to hear IPOA’s application for access to Safaricom’s records as investigators work to piece together the final days of the blogger whose death has become a symbol of growing concerns about press freedom and human rights in Kenya.

As the legal battle unfolds, all eyes remain on how the telecommunications sector’s role in law enforcement investigations will be scrutinized, and whether this case will set new precedents for data privacy and corporate accountability in criminal investigations.