Category: Business Daily

WPP Scangroup founder and former CEO Bharat Thakrar failed in his bid to oust the firm’s board in a vote at the annual general meeting, as the majority shareholder was unable to secure the backing of the minority investors.

The shareholders voted on Monday to remove the current board members and push for new directors, following a petition from minority shareholders who hold a combined 13.59 percent stake.

All minority shareholders who participated in the AGM, with 65.5 million shares or a 15.1 percent stake, backed the ouster bid.

However, their numbers were not enough for the might of the firm’s majority shareholder, WPP, the world’s largest advertising group, which had a 56.26 percent stake or 243.1 million shares.

The three main votes, including ouster of the board, appointment of new directors and replacement of CEO and chair, were rejected by 243.1 million votes, underscoring that none of the minority investors at the AGM backed the majority shareholder.

But shareholders with 125.4 million shares, equivalent to 29 percent of the firm, did not participate in the AGM.

Mr Thakrar remained bullish despite the vote.’The minority shareholders of WPP Scangroup voted no confidence in the board.

The resolutions did not carry. The WPP Plc controls 56.26 percent and voted its entire block against,’ said the former CEO in a statement.

‘Of the roughly 63.5 million independent shares that voted, more than 99 percent were cast in favour of change. WPP did not defeat a divided minority.’

The share closed trading at Sh2.06, a 2.83 percent drop from Monday’s close of Sh2.13.

The minority shareholders, with a combined 13.59 percent stake, including Mr Thakrar’s, forced the firm to include the ouster and election of new directors as part of the AGM, citing a string of poor financial performance.

This escalated the fight between the founder and the UK firm, which first bought a stake in the firm in 2008.

Mr Thakrar, the founder of ScanGroup, exited the firm in 2021 following a fallout and has sued the firm and its parent company, WPP Group, for $£24 million (Sh4.22 billion), citing irregular removal.

Globally, activist investors have mounted a record number of attacks against companies as disgruntled shareholders sought to oust directors or force the sales of businesses whose share prices had languished.

Kenya has witnessed fewer instances of activism, with cases of minority investors pushing publicly for change they believe will shore up profits and share prices being rare.

The AGM listed the minority shareholders’ push under special business, coming after the ordinary business in which current board members-including Richard Omwela, Patricia Kiwanuka, Kagiso Musi, Nick Douglas and Manuel Segimon-have offered themselves for re-election.

The minority shareholders sought the removal of the current board led by chairman Omwela.

Other board members whom the minority owners wanted out are Beverly Spencer Obatoyinbo, Peter Kimurwa, Patricia Kiwanuka, Patricia Helene Nuytemans, Jonathan Eggar, Shahid Sadiq and Tebogo Skwambane.

Mr Thakrar’s camp wanted to replace the board with new directors, including the former CEO, Andrew White, Carl Ogola, Kunal Kamlesh Bid and Rishab Thakrar.

The minority shareholders say the firm’s share price at the Nairobi bourse has declined 62 percent from Sh5.94 when Mr Thakrar was removed, resulting in material erosion of shareholders’ value, alongside loss of major clients and decline in profitability.

In the letter, the minority shareholders say the Scangroup has incurred aggregate trading losses of about Sh3.3 billion between 2021 and 2025, when the net loss widened by 41 percent to Sh713.7 million from a Sh506.7 million loss booked in the previous year. Its revenues have dipped to Sh2 billion from Sh7 billion in 2021.

They are also questioning the terms of the Sh1.2 billion that Scangroup has lent to its parent firm, WPP, with an interest of five percent, arguing that it is lower than average deposits and lending rates at 6.86 percent and 16.85 percent, respectively.

The shareholders say the five-year period has seen the company lose major clients, including KCB, Equity, NCBA and Airtel Africa.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is quickly becoming part of the HR toolkit, from screening CVs and scheduling interviews to predicting attrition and analysing employee performance.

The promise is clear: faster decisions, better insights, and improved efficiency. Yet, as AI grows in intelligence, power, and autonomy, it also collides with some of the deepest moral questions humanity has ever faced.

Because when it comes to people decisions, efficiency is not the only metric that matters.

One of the most pressing concerns is bias. AI systems are trained on historical data, and if that data reflects past inequalities, the system can quietly reinforce them. Where humans go, bias follows.

A hiring algorithm, for example, may favour certain schools, career paths, or demographics simply because that’s what ‘success’ looked like in the past. The risk is not just unfair outcomes-it’s scaling those outcomes across thousands of decisions at speed.

Closely linked to this is the question of transparency and explicability. Many AI tools operate as ‘black boxes,’ making recommendations without clear explanations.

For HR leaders, this creates a dilemma: how do you justify a hiring, promotion, or termination decision if you cannot fully explain how it was made? Employees are increasingly demanding fairness and clarity, and organisations risk losing trust if decisions feel opaque or automated.

Privacy is another growing concern. HR functions now have access to vast amounts of employee data-performance metrics, communication patterns, even behavioural insights.

AI makes it easier to analyse this data at scale, but just because something can be measured does not mean it should be. Where do we draw the line between insight and intrusion? And how do we ensure employees feel respected, not monitored?

There is also the risk of over-reliance. AI can highlight patterns and offer recommendations, but it cannot fully understand context, culture, or human nuance. Yet in many organisations, there is a temptation to treat AI outputs as the objective truth.

This can lead to leaders outsourcing judgment rather than enhancing it. In HR, where decisions affect careers and livelihoods, that is a dangerous path.

Accountability remains a critical question. When an AI-driven decision leads to a negative outcome, who is responsible? The vendor? The HR team? The leadership? Without clear ownership, it becomes difficult to determine who is responsible when harm occurs. HR leaders must ensure that responsibility for decisions remains firmly human, even when technology is involved.

Finally, there is the broader question of what kind of workplace or reality we are building. AI has the potential to trigger and motivate actions based on the insights it generates.

It has the power to transform society because people change how they act simply because they know they are being measured or ranked. For instance, we’re seeing increased AI use among candidates to generate resumes and even answer interview questions in real time.

The role of HR has always been to balance business needs with human impact. AI does not change that responsibility; it amplifies it. It shows us who we are-our prejudices, our patterns, our blind spots-and holds them up at scale.

To make AI ethical, we must first fix ourselves. We must also continue setting clear ethical guidelines, regularly auditing systems for bias, involving diverse perspectives in decision-making, and ensuring employees understand how AI is being used. And how we choose to use it will define not just our processes, but our culture and new definition of humanity.

The National Treasury has moved to protect internal auditors from harassment and intimidation by county government officials as part of a push to safeguard the billions of shillings expended to the devolved units.

In changes to the Public Finance Management (County Governments) Regulations, National Treasury Cabinet Secretary John Mbadi has introduced special protection of the auditors amid growing concerns about wastage of funds in some counties.

The Treasury has amended the law and included new rules that no internal auditor shall be dismissed, demoted, suspended, harassed, discriminated against, intimidated, or subjected to any other form of retaliation for performing their duties.

‘No internal auditor shall be dismissed, demoted, suspended, harassed, discriminated against, intimidated, or experience any other form of retaliation for-(a) performing their duties in good faith; (b) reporting irregularities, fraud, misconduct, or non-compliance; or (c) providing findings, recommendations or opinions related to the internal audit function,’ Mr Mbadi said.

An internal auditor plays a critical role in a corporation by evaluating financial controls and record-keeping processes for accuracy, efficiency, and compliance with relevant laws and regulations. Internal auditors identify and correct any deficiencies in their financial record-keeping before they are discovered in an external audit.

The internal auditors examine financial statements, expense reports, inventory, financial data, budgeting and accounting practices, as well as creating risk assessments for each department.

Internal auditors in counties have, however, been facing growing strains of intimidation and interference by executives rattled by reports which exposed irregularities, especially in key areas such as procurement.

Internal auditors have recently stepped up a push-back against executive interference, litigation, and victimisation by mooting a proposed law that would safeguard their professionalism.

The Institute of Internal Auditors Kenya has spearheaded the Internal Auditors Bill, 2026 to regulate the profession and protect internal auditors from rogue executives.

The Public Sector Accounting Standards Board (PSASB) in January 2026 also launched a manual in collaboration with the National Treasury, designed to give internal auditors practical tools, clear procedures, and professional guidance to support better governance, risk management, and internal control across all public entities.

Both the fiscal imbalance and structure of monetary policy mean that Kenya continues to be a high interest rates environment. Further, the public sector has out-competed the private in the credit market for over a decade and half.

Under these circumstances, the role of Development Finance Institutions (DFIs) is urgent and critical.

We require DFIs because the industrial enterprises that they finance have long payback periods, need patient capital, and are unable to shoulder high interest rates. DFIs provide long-term capital and financial services to sectors of the economy or projects that are considered too risky for traditional commercial banks.

The latter prioritise short-term profitability and shareholder returns.

DFIs on the other hand, are driven by a dual mandate – financial sustainability while maximising socio-economic development. To fulfill their purpose, DFI work around four main pillars – bridging market failure, crowding-in private capital, advisory services and implementing policy priorities.

As they should, commercial banks avoid high-risk, high-return projects with long payback periods. DFIs step up to fund such projects in infrastructure, energy plants, and large-scale manufacturing. They invest in and lend to underserved sectors such as Agriculture, and micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs).

DFIs serve as market catalysts. By offering moderately priced and well-structured loans, equity investments, or partial risk guarantees, a DFI de-risks a project, giving commercial banks and private equity funds the confidence to co-invest. In addition, DFIs provide business advisory services.

DFIs provide governments a policy execution platform. For example, in Kenya, the Agricultural Finance Corporation (AFC) directly funds food security initiatives, while the Kenya Development Corporation (KDC) targets industrial goals aligned with Kenya’s Vision 2030 and the Bottom-Up Economic Transformation Agenda.

Current and previous administrations have tried to reverse the decline (12.5 percent to 7.1 percent in 15 years) of the proportionate contribution of manufacturing to GDP, without success. This is because of the dearth of appropriate finance. The case for DFI reform has, therefore, never been more urgent.

To lay foundation for the future, the DFIs themselves are pushing for a modern, appropriate regulatory framework – one that would make it easier for them to raise and deploy capital. To this end, they convened a stakeholders meeting this past week at a city hotel.

Most were created by Acts of Parliament. Since then, their operating environment has evolved considerably. The original Joint Loan Board Credit Scheme (created alongside ICDC in 1954), provided micro finance, but was phased out, replaced by enterprise funds in most counties. Youth, Women, Uwezo and most recently Hustler Funds other recent policy initiatives.

The Small Enterprise Finance Company (Sefco), established in 1983 as a subsidiary of the Development Finance Company of Kenya (DFCK), focused on industrial loans under five million shillings. It was later absorbed into the Development Bank of Kenya.

The KDC is a merger of Industrial Commercial and Development Corporation (ICDC), IDB Capital and Tourism Finance Corporation (formerly Kenya Tourism Development Corporation).

The Kenya Industrial Estates (KIE), Agriculture Finance Corporation (AFC) and Agriculture Development Corporation have retained much of their original form, although the latter is no longer seen as a development finance institution after the Land Transfer Program wound down.

Regulated by the Central Bank of Kenya using a specialised regime, the Kenya Mortgage Refinance Company (KMRC), is the latest entrant.

The stakeholders meeting last week agreed that specialised regulation is not control. For instance, the CBK regulates commercial banks, but does not control their boards of directors.

It conducts fit and proper tests on directors to be appointed, but does not appoint them. In comparison, DFI boards are appointed by a Kenya gazette notice on a Friday afternoon. The Government Enterprises Act did away with this sort of control.

We debated the best regulatory regime, considering four options – a specialist regulator, CBK-led, self-regulation, and a hybrid of all the above. We preferred a CBK-led specialised regime, tailor-made for the sector.

At below Sh60 billion, the total DFI portfolio is regrettably too small to create real impact in the economy – that would require about Sh700 billion to-Sh800 billion.

If I could persuade my Treasury bosses, we would make a once-off investment Sh60 billion and Sh70 billions, and invite other shareholders, into DFIs.

We should revive Sefco with Sh5 billion, and inject Sh15 billion each into KIE and AFC; and Sh25 billion to the KDC. This will make it possible for DFIs to mobilise resources in the capital markets, just like KMRC.

Kenya’s motor vehicle assemblers and parts manufacturers are set to access soft loans of up to Sh7.5 billion under a Japanese-backed programme aimed at expanding local vehicle production and reducing the country’s reliance on imports.

The funding will come from a 15 billion Japanese Yen (about Sh12 billion) Samurai Loan Facility signed between Kenya and Japan in March 2026.

The Ministry of Trade has been seeking approval to spend Sh7.5 billion of the loan in the 2026/27 financial year to establish and upgrade an automotive parts manufacturing facility, provide technical support to the industry players, among others as Kenya seeks to grow its automotive industry.

The three-year programme is aimed at supporting Kenya’s goal of becoming a regional automotive manufacturing hub.

A source within the industry has told the Business Daily that the Sh7.5 billion drawdown is the first portion of the Samurai loan and the rest will follow.

‘The Samurai money will be a soft loan for automotive assemblers and parts manufacturers like batteries, windscreen etc,’ the source said.

‘Assemblers will apply for the loan or the person applying for the vehicle loan will apply directly to the bank appointed by the government of Kenya, it will address the demand and supply side.’

The programme will also fund technical training, legal and regulatory reforms, support for vehicle dealers, financing for the purchase of locally assembled vehicles, and project administration.

‘The project will require Sh7.545 billion for the following [other] activities: development of legal framework: Automotive Bill, public participation; investment support for new vehicle dealers; financing approved applicants for locally assembled new vehicle purchases; …among other activities,’ said Principal Secretary Juma Mukhwana.

The project is expected to boost local manufacturing, create jobs and strengthen Kenya’s automotive industry.

‘The Kenya Vehicle Manufacturers (KVM) … and other assemblers will access the soft loan like any other to enhance their capacities like upgrade their plants. A portion will go to skills development,’ the source added.

Under the programme, assemblers will be able to apply for the loans to expand production capacity and upgrade plants, while individuals seeking to purchase locally assembled vehicles will access financing through banks appointed by the government.

In a May 20 presentation to a parliamentary trade, industry and cooperatives committee, the PS said the loan will finance the National Automotive Sector Development Project.

‘The Government of Kenya signed a three-year Samurai loan financing facility agreement of 15 billion Japanese Yen (about Sh13.1 billion) with the Government of Japan for the development of the automotive sector,’ said Mr Mukhwana in the presentation.

‘In the financial year 2026/27 the project will require Sh7.545 billion for the following activities: establishment and enhancement of production facility for automotive parts manufacturing.’

Samurai financing refers to debt dominated in Japan’s Yen and subject to Japanese regulations.

Utility company Kenya Power is expected to cancel out losses from the end of its monopoly in electricity sales with the lease of its infrastructure as analysts see a structural shift in the company’s business model.

Analysts at Standard Investment Bank (SIB) expect the utility to transform into an infrastructure firm, leasing out its over 160,000 kilometres network of high and low voltage lines to producers seeking to sell electricity directly to customers.

The dismantling of the legacy single buyer model is expected to shakeup Kenya Power’s business model as it faces competition to mostly retain its large-scale power consumers such as industries.

Already, electricity generating firm KenGen has sought an electric power transmission and distribution license for its Green Energy Park SEZ in Olkaria while Centum is seeking to wheel power from its Akira Geothermal facility in Naivasha to its special economic zone in Vipingo.

Producers are likely to leverage Kenya Power’s transmission network to sell power directly to customers instead of putting up their own infrastructure.

‘Kenya Power’s business model is set to transition from being an exclusive electricity retailer to an infrastructure landlord. While they face the risk of losing direct retail revenue from their top commercial clients to competitors, their survival will now depend on collecting ‘wheeling fees’ from private players and cleaning up the 21 percent power leaks across their network,’ Standard Investment Bank said in a valuation report.

‘To this end, Kenya Power’s future profitability will heavily depend on its ability to run a highly reliable, low-loss transmission network that private energy companies are willing to pay to use.’

Kenya’s Energy (Electricity Market, Bulk Supply, and Open Access) Regulations 2026 have sought to establish a competitive, transparent, and multi-supplier electricity market which is designed to stimulate broader economic growth.

The framework is centred on catalysing private capital, enhancing grid reliability and industrial productivity and deepening regional energy integration.

Kenya Power’s revenue has been premised largely on growing demand for power from customers, a driver likely to be tapered if the utility loses some of its largest consumers to producers turned suppliers.

Large power consumers who are mostly industries contributed to 54 percent of Kenya Power sales in the 12-months period to June 2025 while households consuming less than 100 kilowatt-hours (units) of electricity only made-up 17 percent of sales with the balance of 29 percent covering other consumer segments.

The data from the utility company underlines the importance of large-power consumers who will likely be the target of producers seeking to transform into direct sellers.

Kenya Power increased its dividend payout by 42.85 percent to Sh1 per share for the year ended June 2025 despite an 18.66 percent decline in profitability on lower revenues and higher finance costs.

The reduction in net income to Sh24.46 billion emerged as a lower tariff offset the impact of increased electricity unit sales as the cost of a unit of electricity for most customers fell in line with a three-year tariff gazette in 2023 by the Energy and Petroleum Regulatory Authority (Epra).

The utility returned to profit growth for the six months’ period to December 2025 with net earnings rising to Sh10.4 billion from Sh9.9 billion, helping the firm raise its interim dividend from Sh0.20 to Sh0.30 per share.

Standard Investment Bank (SIB) has noted that while Kenya Power has the opportunity to diversify into infrastructure leasing, its earnings momentum is likely to be slowed down by the tariff review freeze by its parent ministry besides system losses and bad debt from defaulting customers.

A CEO passionately pushes for the launch of a new product. The management team nods in agreement. No one questions the assumptions, challenges the risks, or asks difficult questions. Six months later, the project fails, costing the organisation millions of shillings.

The uncomfortable truth is that many organisational failures do not occur because leaders lack intelligence or experience. They happen because employees remain silent when they should speak.

Many professionals hesitate to challenge their bosses for fear of appearing disloyal or confrontational. Yet the ability to respectfully disagree may be one of the most valuable skills in today’s workplace, helping organisations avoid costly mistakes while strengthening decision-making and accountability.

Unfortunately, some workplaces still operate under the mistaken belief that loyalty means agreement, which creates “groupthink,” a situation where individuals suppress their opinions to maintain harmony.

Consider an HR manager instructed to terminate an employee without following due process. The manager understands the legal implications but fears challenging the CEO’s directive.

The dismissal proceeds, the employee files a claim, and the organisation incurs substantial legal costs after losing the case. When questions arise, the same HR manager may be criticised for failing to provide sound professional advice.

A finance manager may notice unrealistic revenue projections but remain silent during budget discussions. In each case, silence becomes expensive.

During my years in HR leadership and executive coaching, I have observed that professionals rarely lose credibility because they respectfully challenge a decision, but lose influence because they fail to speak when their expertise is most needed. Some later admit they saw the risks but chose silence over discomfort.

The art of challenging bosses

Disagreeing with a boss effectively requires more than courage. It demands emotional intelligence, communication skills, good judgement, and an understanding of organisational dynamics.

It is critical to understand your boss’s leadership and personality style.

Some welcome robust debate and alternative viewpoints. Understanding how your manager receives feedback significantly improves the likelihood of your disagreement being received positively.

Timing is important. Few leaders respond positively to criticism immediately after a difficult board meeting, during a crisis, or when emotions are running high. Others prefer information presented privately rather than in public meetings.

Focus on the issue. Statements such as “You’re wrong” or “That won’t work” immediately trigger defensiveness. A more effective approach is to frame concerns around business outcomes, risks, and shared objectives.

For example, instead of saying, “I disagree with this decision,” consider saying, “I would like to offer another perspective that may help us reduce potential risks.” Or, “I understand the objective we are trying to achieve.

May I share some concerns regarding implementation?” Such statements acknowledge the leader’s position while creating space for meaningful discussion.

Facts are also more persuasive than opinions. Customer feedback, operational experience, financial projections, legal implications, and performance data provide a stronger basis for disagreement than personal preferences.

A procurement manager might say, “Based on previous supplier performance data, there is a significant risk of delivery delays. Could we consider an alternative supplier alongside the current option?”

The goal is not to win an argument, but to improve the quality of the decision. Asking thoughtful questions instead of presenting direct challenges is an effective technique for disagreeing.

Questions encourage reflection and reduce defensiveness. For instance: “Have we considered how employees or customers may respond to this change?” Questions demonstrate professionalism, curiosity, and commitment to organisational success rather than personal opinion.

Disagreeing effectively also requires a combination of assertiveness, emotional intelligence, critical thinking, and persuasive communication skills. Employees must be able to present facts objectively, manage emotions, read situations accurately, and articulate concerns in a manner that encourages dialogue rather than confrontation.

Ethical, legal, and safety-related issues demand courage and integrity. Remaining silent in such circumstances can expose organisations to significant financial, reputational, and legal risks.

The most successful organisations recognise that innovation and good governance thrive when assumptions are tested. Likewise, the most effective leaders are not those surrounded by people who always agree with them.

They are those who create environments where intelligent disagreement is welcomed and diverse perspectives are encouraged.

The most valuable employees are not necessarily the most compliant, but those who have the confidence to speak up, the wisdom to choose the right moment, and the skill to communicate respectfully.

Disagreeing with your boss is not about challenging authority. It is about strengthening decisions.

In an era of rapid disruption and increasing accountability, organisations cannot afford cultures where employees simply echo their bosses.

The recent fire tragedy at Utumishi Girls Academy was a most unfortunate incident that shocked us all. Since then, it has been reported that there has been a spate of unrest in other schools, some of which have had students sent home.

The incidents should awaken us to examine what has been going wrong and what could be done better to prevent disasters in the institutions, considering that parents entrust their children to schools for education, basic care, and safety.

More importantly, we must go further and design, and adopt a deliberate preventive system that addresses underlying issues, root causes, triggers, contributing factors and system failures.

The Safety Standards Manual for Schools (2008) is a good starting point in addressing disaster prevention in schools. It lays out objectives, principles, standards and general guidelines for safety, more or less like a policy document.

However, the missing link is a practical School Safety Implementation and Monitoring Manual that puts the principles into day-to-day routines and roles that can be implemented by teachers, staff and students.

Whereas there is no justification for arson and destruction of property by students, unrest does not appear from the blues. There are usually tell-tale signs in the form of grievances and tension that foment and end up blowing up in one form or another.

When student concerns have no outlet and management is heavy-handed, pressure builds and ultimately the matter explodes in unfathomable and regrettable ways.

Prevention is the key, and it begins with how we manage and listen to students. A proposed solution would be to create channels for students to air their grievances. Let students be heard.

When students have legitimate channels to express grievances, it becomes much easier to pick up on the issues that are fomenting beneath the surface before they boil over. A school that listens has early warning; a school that does not is often blindsided. Schools could hold fortnightly Barazas to allow students to air their grievances.

Stakeholders such as PTA members can participate in the forums for balanced discussions. It is important not only to listen to grievances, but also to address them fairly, and if need be, with the participation of other stakeholders including parents and the Education ministry officials.

Where there is a clear sign that students have uncontainable pressure, there is no harm in allowing them to go home and cool off for a short while before addressing their grievances.

On the issue of discipline, the school administration needs to take early action on unruly students, before they influence the rest. A practical guide on procedures, offences and respective punishments could be included in the manual to guide disciplinary committees.

School management today needs to be less high-handed and more pragmatic.

This is not about weakness or letting standards slip – it is about judgment. If students ask for a break, there is often no harm in giving them one; just involve stakeholders such as parents and ministry officials. A short, managed pause is far cheaper than a burnt dormitory. Pragmatism and discipline are not opposites.

The goal is fair, predictable management that students respect, rather than a cycle of suppression and revolt. The goal is to hear them early, act reasonably, involve stakeholders and discipline fairly and by the book.

A practical manual would set standards that would guide stakeholders and more particularly safety committees in assessing risk levels for dormitories, classes and other structures.

Ultimately, safety has to become a culture – a matter of awareness and practice shared by all stakeholders: teachers, students, other staff and parents. When safety is owned by everyone, it is no longer a distant wish; it is a designed outcome.

A culture of safety means students know evacuation routes without thinking; staff act on warnings as a reflex; parents feel free to point out a hazard; and management leads in the collaborative and comprehensive safety awareness and practice. Awareness and practice, repeated until it is second nature.

Prevention is better, cheaper, and kinder than cure. We do not need another incident to persuade us to create a simple and practical School Safety Implementation and Monitoring Manual covering student management, discipline, infrastructure and simple standard and operating procedures; an easy-to-read manual, in the format of the Highway Code, to be a reference point for training teachers and other staff, as well as raising safety awareness amongst students and parents.

The Manual would contain a standard form and checklist for use by School Safety Committees in safety inspections. It would be a document that will be improved over time from feedback from stakeholders. A huge campaign would make the document a widely known, widely used, reference point.

You glance at your phone after a meeting only to find dozens of missed calls from the same person. While it may seem more annoying than unlawful, legal experts say persistent unwanted phone calls can, under certain circumstances, attract legal consequences in Kenya.

According to Mary Audi and Fridah Muriithi, lawyers at Muri Mwaniki Thige and Kageni (MMTK) LLP Advocates, repeated calls do not have to contain threats to amount to actionable conduct under Kenyan law.

“Repeated calls can still be actionable where they amount to cyber harassment under the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act, harassment under the Protection Against Domestic Violence Act, or an infringement of the right to privacy of communications under Article 31(d) of the Constitution,” the lawyers tell Nation Lifestyle. “The law is concerned with the pattern and effect of the conduct, not only with whether an express threat was made.”

The lawyers note that there is no magic number of calls that automatically transforms an irritating situation into a legal dispute.

“The issue is whether the person wilfully communicates, knowing or ought to know the conduct is likely to cause fear, detriment, or is indecent or grossly offensive.”

The laws at play

Several laws may come into play depending on the nature of the relationship between the parties involved.

Article 31(d) of the Constitution guarantees every person the right not to have the privacy of their communications infringed. Meanwhile, Section 27 of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act criminalises cyber harassment where communication is intended, or is reasonably likely, to cause fear, distress or other detrimental effects.

The Protection Against Domestic Violence Act may also apply, particularly where the repeated calls come from a spouse, former partner or family member. The Act specifically recognises repeatedly making telephone calls as a form of harassment in domestic settings.

“Repeated unwanted calls by an ex-partner or family member may constitute domestic violence even where no physical violence has occurred,” Ms Audi and Ms Muriithi explain.

Context matters

The context of the calls also matters. According to the lawyers, the legal implications may differ depending on whether the caller is an ex-partner, a debt collector, an employer or a stranger.

For instance, debt collectors and digital lenders could potentially run afoul of the Data Protection Act if they misuse an individual’s personal information. The Act allows individuals to object to the processing of their data and seek compensation where they suffer damage resulting from violations of the law.

Individuals experiencing persistent unwanted calls are advised to keep evidence, including screenshots of call logs, voicemail recordings, text messages and records of any complaints made to authorities or service providers.

“They should keep a dated call log, screenshots of call history, voicemail recordings, SMS or WhatsApp messages, the phone numbers used, and copies of complaints made to the service provider, police, Data Commissioner, or Communications Authority.”

Victims also have several legal options available to them. Depending on the circumstances, they can report the matter to the police, seek restraining or protection orders from the courts, file complaints with the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner, or pursue remedies through telecommunications regulators.

The lawyers further note that mobile service providers can receive complaints and investigate nuisance numbers within the existing regulatory framework.

Importantly, people should not assume that only direct threats warrant legal action.

“A common misconception is that a call must contain a direct threat before it becomes unlawful,” Ms Audi and Ms Muriithi say. “That is not true under the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act, the Protection Against Domestic Violence Act, or Article 31(d) of the Constitution.”

What to do

For anyone facing persistent unwanted calls, the lawyers recommend first asking the caller to stop, blocking the number where possible, preserving evidence and escalating the matter to the relevant authorities if the conduct continues.

So, can someone sue another person over repeated phone calls? Yes, but not simply because the calls are annoying. The crucial question, the lawyers say, is whether the conduct amounts to harassment, infringes on privacy rights or violates other protections provide

Kenya’s plan to sell data collected via eCitizen and other State agencies is opening a new debate about the value of information in the digital economy and the limits to what public institutions can do with it.

At the centre of the proposal is a planned data marketplace where businesses, researchers, investors and innovators would be able to access datasets generated by government agencies.

The proposal comes at a time when countries around the world are increasingly treating data as an economic asset. Yet that information is unlike other government resources because much of it originates from citizens.

This raises questions about privacy, ownership and whether information collected for public service delivery can later be commercialised.

Kenya’s data protection laws draw clear boundaries around what can and cannot be sold. While some government datasets may be commercially valuable, others are legally protected because they contain information that could identify individuals.

Understanding these distinctions is key to understanding how the proposed marketplace would operate and the safeguards it would require.

Why does the State want to sell data?

Officials argue that vast amounts of information collected by the State remain under-utilised despite having significant economic value. By making some of this data available at a fee, the government hopes to generate revenue while supporting innovation and evidence-based decision-making.

What is the difference between personal and non-personal data?

Personal data refers to information that can identify a living individual either directly or indirectly. This includes names, identity card numbers, phone numbers, email addresses, biometric records, photographs, location information and financial details. Even where a person’s name is removed, data may still be considered personal if it can reasonably be linked back to a specific individual.

For example, information showing that a particular person owns a vehicle, received government benefits, paid taxes or visited a health facility would generally fall within the category of personal data.

Non-personal data, on the other hand, is information that does not identify any individual. It is usually aggregated, anonymous or statistical in nature. Examples include county-level agricultural production figures, average household income trends, road traffic volumes, electricity consumption patterns, rainfall statistics and sectoral economic performance data.

Why can’t the government sell personal data?

Kenya’s Data Protection Act places strict limits on how personal information can be collected, processed, shared and transferred.

Government agencies typically collect personal information for specific purposes such as issuing identity cards, processing taxes, delivering healthcare, providing education services or administering social programmes. The law generally requires that personal data be used only for the purpose for which it was collected unless another lawful basis exists.

Selling citizens’ personal information would likely violate several core principles of data protection, including purpose limitation, fairness and lawful processing.

The Kenyan Constitution also guarantees the right to privacy, including the right not to have information relating to one’s private affairs unnecessarily revealed.

Allowing the commercial sale of personal information could expose citizens to profiling, discrimination, financial fraud, identity theft and unwanted surveillance. It could also undermine public trust in government systems, making people less willing to share information needed for service delivery.

For these reasons, personal data is generally treated as a protected asset belonging to the individual rather than a commodity that can be freely traded by the State.

Why can’t some economic data be sold?

Not all non-personal data can be commercialised.

Under Kenya’s Access to Information Act, public bodies are required to provide citizens with access to information held by the State, subject to specific exemptions.

Information relating to public finances, government programmes, public contracts, environmental matters and economic performance is often expected to be publicly accessible because it supports transparency and accountability.

How will people’s privacy be protected?

The government’s plans are expected to rely heavily on anonymisation and aggregation.

Anonymisation involves removing or altering information that could identify a specific person. Aggregation involves combining data into broader categories so that only trends and patterns are visible.

The Office of the Data Protection Commissioner would be expected to oversee compliance with the Data Protection Act and ensure that any datasets released through the marketplace meet legal requirements.

The participants in the data market will also be heavily supervised to ensure proper use of the data obtained from the marketplace and that only anonymised data is obtained.

Who owns government-held data?

One of the emerging questions is whether data collected from citizens belongs to the government, the individual or both.

Current data protection laws recognise that individuals retain rights over their personal data even when it is held by public institutions. Governments act as data controllers or custodians rather than outright owners of personal information.

Non-personal data, however, is not well-defined legally. Governments often argue that aggregated datasets generated through public administration are public assets that can be used to support economic development. But there’s no clarity on whether citizens should claim ownership to the data and whether they should be paid for it.

What are the benefits and risks of a government data marketplace?

Proponents argue that selling non-personal data could unlock economic value from information that currently sits unused in government databases. Businesses could make better investment decisions, researchers could generate new insights and technology companies could develop innovative services.

Critics, however, warn that weak safeguards could create privacy risks, encourage excessive data collection or blur the line between public service delivery and commercial exploitation.

The success of the plan will need a clear demonstration by the government that personal information will remain protected, citizens’ rights respected and commercially valuable datasets shared without compromising privacy or public trust.

Has this happened in other countries?

Yes, governments like the United Kingdom, the United States, and Singapore have long recognised that public-sector data has economic value. In these countries, the trend has been making more government data freely available as open data while charging for specialised products, real-time access or value-added services.