Kenya’s National Treasury says it will move swiftly to challenge a High Court decision that voided the government’s sale of its 15 per cent stake in Safaricom to South Africa’s Vodacom, a transaction valued at more than Sh200 billion.
Speaking in Kisumu on Tuesday, Treasury Cabinet Secretary John Mbadi said the government remains confident the divestiture followed the law and would defend it through the appeals process. He said Treasury lawyers were reviewing the full judgment to determine the specific grounds for a judicial review application.
A three-judge High Court bench had earlier ruled that the transaction violated constitutional provisions on public participation and transparency, citing gaps in disclosure and procedural lapses in how the sale was approved. The court ordered the shares reverted to the state and nullified the underlying approvals that had authorised the sale.
Mbadi pushed back on the court’s public participation findings, arguing that the divestiture had in fact undergone extensive consultation, including hearings held across 30 counties, alongside the required Cabinet and parliamentary approvals. He maintained that due process had been followed at every stage of the transaction.
The CS also defended the broader rationale for the sale, describing it as part of efforts to raise resources for national development priorities. Vodacom, the South African telecoms giant that acquired the stake, has separately indicated it intends to pursue its own appeal against the ruling.
The dispute over the Safaricom sale has been one of the most closely watched commercial and political battles in Kenya this year, drawing scrutiny from lawmakers, civil society groups and minority shareholders since the deal was first announced. Tuesday’s developments suggest the matter is far from settled, with the case now expected to move to the Court of Appeal.
For ordinary Kenyans, the stakes extend beyond the courtroom. The Treasury has previously said proceeds from the sale were earmarked for financing key infrastructure projects, meaning any prolonged legal battle could have implications for how quickly those funds become available. Analysts say the case could also set an important precedent for how future state divestitures are structured and disclosed to the public.