🇰🇪 Kenya News

All politics economy sports tech world culture science health

Fuliza’s Poverty Premium: Safaricom, NCBA and KCB Must Explain the Cost of Kenya’s Emergency Credit

When a Kenyan runs short of money at the till, Fuliza offers an immediate escape. The payment goes through. The embarrassment ends. But the shortage becomes a debt carrying charges. For Safaricom and its banking partners, those small emergencies form a substantial business. The public-interest question is whether customers’ growing reliance on emergency borrowing is being celebrated as financial inclusion without enough scrutiny of its cost. Safaricom’s FY2025 disclosures put Fuliza disbursements at Sh981.6 billion. Its investment-banking analyst, NCBA Investment Bank, reported that Safaricom earned approximately Sh4.1 billion in Fuliza revenue that year. These figures describe lending volumes and Safaricom’s revenue respectively—not the partnership’s gross profit. That distinction matters. Claims circulating online that Sh1.2 trillion in lending translates into Sh120 billion in gross profit have no demonstrated accounting basis. A serious examination of Fuliza must follow the actual charges, revenue allocation, funding costs and credit losses. The bank missing from the conversation Presenting Fuliza solely as a Safaricom–NCBA arrangement leaves out KCB. Safaricom’s own disclosures identify both NCBA and KCB as the lenders underwriting the facility. Historical reporting describes a revenue split of 40 per cent each for Safaricom and NCBA, and 20 per cent for KCB. That historical allocation should not be presented as a verified current contractual arrangement without updated confirmation. All three institutions should explain, in accessible terms, what customers collectively pay and how those receipts are divided. The charge beyond the headline fee Safaricom’s published restructuring announcement retained a one-off access fee of 1 per cent. It also provided three days without daily maintenance charges for borrowing of Sh1,000 and below, while retaining daily charges thereafter. A small percentage can sound harmless. Repeated borrowing changes the picture: each fresh draw can attract another access fee, while an unpaid balance can accumulate daily charges. The relevant measure of affordability is therefore what a customer pays across a month of repeated shortages—not simply the advertised price of one emergency transaction. The collection mechanism deserves scrutiny The published terms authorise automatic recovery from money deposited or received into the borrower’s M-PESA account until the outstanding obligation is cleared. They also specify that available funds go towards interest and fees before principal. That creates a powerful collection mechanism. For someone whose next incoming payment is already committed to food, transport or rent, automatic recovery can leave another immediate shortfall. This does not prove that every customer becomes trapped. It does make repeat borrowing, repayment hardship and customers’ ability to exit essential measures of the product’s social impact. The partners have acknowledged prolonged borrowing In the September 2022 restructuring announcement, NCBA chief executive John Gachora said the intended four-to-seven-day overdraft had evolved, with many wallets remaining overdrawn for 14–19 days following the pandemic. The partners presented the pricing changes as a response to that problem. The unanswered question is what happened afterwards. Did customers spend fewer days in debt? Did repeat borrowing decline? Did households retain more disposable income? Those outcomes deserve the same prominence as disbursement growth. Safaricom, NCBA and KCB should publish clear figures on total customer charges, repeat use, time spent overdrawn, hardship complaints and the current revenue-sharing arrangement. Fuliza can provide useful emergency liquidity. But its success should also be measured by whether customers emerge from the emergency. A growing credit business is not, by itself, proof of improving household finances.

kenya-today.com · world

Safaricom’s Sh4 Billion DigiFarm Scandal: Ndegwa, Khawaja and Pal Face Questions Over Losses, Contracts and Data Privacy

A fresh wave of allegations targeting Safaricom's top leadership has thrust Kenya's telecommunications giant into a growing controversy involving claims of multibillion-shilling losses, questionable financial oversight, potential conflicts of interest, executive departures and the handling of millions of Kenyans' personal information. At the centre of the controversy are Chief Executive Officer Peter Ndegwa, board chairman Adil Khawaja and Chief Finance Officer Dilip Pal, whose leadership and oversight responsibilities have come under renewed scrutiny following a series of social media disclosures by blogger Cyprian Nyakundi. The allegations, circulated on October 18, 2026, raise questions about whether Safaricom's governance structures are sufficiently independent to investigate concerns involving its most senior executives. They also place renewed attention on the company's financial disclosures, particularly its investment in DigiFarm Kenya Limited. Among the most serious claims is that DigiFarm, a subsidiary established to provide technology-enabled agricultural services, has accumulated losses reportedly reaching Sh4 billion. Nyakundi claims there are plans to treat the amount as bad debt, potentially leaving shareholders to absorb the financial consequences. The Sh4 billion figure has not been independently substantiated by the documents reviewed for this report. Nevertheless, Safaricom's own published financial records confirm that DigiFarm has received substantial financial support and that the company has recognised expected credit losses associated with loans advanced to the subsidiary. That documentary evidence makes DigiFarm's financial performance a legitimate subject for closer examination, regardless of whether the larger figure circulating online is ultimately established. DigiFarm: The Financial Records Behind the Sh4 Billion Allegation DigiFarm was established as part of Safaricom's efforts to expand beyond telecommunications into agricultural technology. The platform was intended to connect smallholder farmers with services that could improve productivity, market access and financial inclusion. The company's financial relationship with Safaricom is documented in the telecommunications group's published financial statements. According to Safaricom's historical financial information, DigiFarm Kenya Limited was incorporated in October 2019 as a wholly owned subsidiary. The records confirm that Safaricom advanced loans to support its operating and capital expenditure. For the financial year ended March 2025, Safaricom disclosed that DigiFarm's loan balance stood at Sh485.4 million at the beginning of the year. Additional lending amounted to Sh90.1 million, while an expected-credit-loss allowance of Sh179.3 million was recognised during the year. The closing net loan balance was Sh396.2 million. The disclosures also show expected-credit-loss allowances in earlier financial years, demonstrating that credit-risk provisions connected to DigiFarm were not a new development. More significantly, Safaricom disclosed that the DigiFarm loan facility carried a moratorium on principal and interest repayments until the subsidiary achieved positive returns. That arrangement raises an important financial oversight question: how does Safaricom evaluate the recoverability of loans advanced to a subsidiary whose repayment obligations are linked to achieving positive financial performance? The existence of such a moratorium does not itself indicate wrongdoing. Companies frequently provide patient capital to developing subsidiaries. However, shareholders are entitled to understand the business assumptions, risk assessments and performance milestones supporting those decisions. Nyakundi's allegation that Sh4 billion could be classified as bad debt therefore requires examination against the actual financial statements, internal management accounts and any proposed impairment decisions. A Sh4 billion accounting loss cannot be established simply by adding unrelated balances or treating every loan provision as evidence of financial misconduct. Safaricom should clarify whether the reported amount relates to accumulated operating losses, impaired receivables, shareholder funding, investments or another financial measure. Without that breakdown, the figure remains a serious but unverified allegation. Why Dilip Pal's Financial Oversight Is Under Scrutiny As Safaricom's Chief Finance Officer, Dilip Pal has held a central role in financial reporting, capital allocation and the presentation of the company's financial performance. Nyakundi has raised concerns on Pal's professional registration, employment authorisation and continued tenure, while questioning whether his relationship with Ndegwa has affected internal accountability. These allegations require documentary verification. The material reviewed does not establish that Pal lacks valid professional credentials or employment authorisation, and no regulatory finding of non-compliance has been identified. Nevertheless, the questions can be resolved through verifiable records rather than speculation. Safaricom should be able to explain the professional requirements applicable to its finance leadership, the company's compliance processes and the oversight arrangements governing the CFO's appointment and continued service. The more substantial issue concerns financial accountability. If DigiFarm has experienced significant losses or required repeated financial support, shareholders deserve an explanation of the financial assessments prepared by management, the recommendations submitted to the board and the accounting treatment approved. Financial reporting decisions should be based on applicable accounting standards and reliable evidence, not the personal preferences of individual executives. The allegations concerning Pal should therefore be examined alongside the company's published accounts, independent audit procedures and board-level financial oversight. Adil Khawaja and the Independence of Safaricom's Board Safaricom chairman Adil Khawaja has also been named in Nyakundi's allegations, particularly concerning the board's oversight of senior management. The criticism raises a fundamental governance question: can a board demonstrate effective independence when serious concerns are raised about the executives it supervises? Safaricom's own corporate governance disclosures establish that directors are required to declare actual or potential conflicts of interest. The company also states that conflicted directors should withdraw from relevant deliberations and decisions. These requirements are particularly important when allegations concern financial reporting, procurement arrangements or relationships involving senior executives. Khawaja's position places him at the centre of the board's responsibility to ensure that management is held accountable through proper corporate processes. That does not establish that he has improperly protected any executive. However, it makes the board's response to documented governance concerns a legitimate matter of shareholder interest. If the allegations are serious enough to affect confidence in the company's internal controls, an independent review would provide a clearer basis for determining whether management decisions complied with established policies. Safaricom's board should be prepared to explain how it assesses material subsidiary losses, oversees related-party transactions and responds to credible whistleblower complaints. Peter Ndegwa's Wife Named in Branding Contract Allegations Another allegation circulating through Nyakundi's posts concerns Safaricom's branding and procurement arrangements. Nyakundi claims that Ndegwa's wife, Jemimah, operates from London and handles branding-related work for Safaricom, including design and printing. If such arrangements exist, the central questions concern the identity of the contracting companies, the services provided, the amounts paid and whether any potential conflict of interest was properly disclosed. The available reporting does not independently establish that Jemimah received Safaricom contracts, controlled suppliers or benefited from improper procurement decisions. Those distinctions are important because family relationships alone do not establish misconduct. The relevant issue is whether any business interest connected to a senior executive was declared, assessed and managed in accordance with company policy. Safaricom's own governance disclosures provide a clear framework for examining the allegation. Directors are required to disclose potential conflicts, and related-party transactions are expected to be conducted on appropriate commercial terms. A transparent response could identify the relevant procurement processes, explain whether any related-party declarations were necessary and establish whether the transactions were independently approved. The allegations should be tested against actual contracts, supplier ownership records, invoices and procurement approvals. Without those records, claims of improper family enrichment remain unproven. Executive Departures and Allegations of Retaliation Over Customer Data Perhaps the most sensitive allegation concerns Safaricom's handling of customer information. Nyakundi has claimed that Ndegwa pushed out members of the company's executive committee who opposed the disclosure of Kenyans' personal data. The allegation raises two separate questions: whether customer information was improperly disclosed and whether employees who objected to such conduct suffered retaliation. Neither claim has been independently established by the material reviewed. However, the potential implications are significant because Safaricom operates communications and mobile-money infrastructure used by millions of people. A telecommunications company holds sensitive information that can include subscriber identities, communication records and location-related data. The handling of such information is subject to legal and regulatory obligations. The company must ensure that requests for customer information are handled through lawful processes, with appropriate authorisation, access controls and accountability. If former executives raised concerns about these processes, the circumstances of their departures would be relevant to assessing whether internal reporting mechanisms functioned properly. But executive turnover alone cannot establish retaliation. Any investigation would need employment records, contemporaneous complaints, internal correspondence and testimony from individuals with direct knowledge. The Office of the Data Protection Commissioner and other competent authorities have roles in examining complaints concerning the unlawful processing or disclosure of personal data. Safaricom should be able to explain its safeguards without disclosing sensitive customer information or compromising legitimate security arrangements. The June 2024 Protests and Unanswered Privacy Concerns Nyakundi's latest criticism also revisits questions about telecommunications data during Kenya's June 2024 anti-Finance Bill protests. The demonstrations resulted in deaths, injuries and widespread public concern about the conduct of security agencies. In that context, allegations concerning access to protesters' communications or location information are especially sensitive. It is important, however, to distinguish the existence of public concerns from proof that Safaricom unlawfully disclosed information or facilitated abuses. No evidence reviewed for this article establishes that Ndegwa, Khawaja or Pal authorised unlawful surveillance of protesters. The legitimate public-interest question is whether the company maintains safeguards capable of preventing unauthorised access to customer data, including during periods of political unrest. An independent assessment of those safeguards, accompanied by appropriate public reporting, could help address concerns without compromising lawful investigations or individual privacy. Safaricom's Role in Elections Raises Further Questions Nyakundi has also questioned Safaricom's role in election-related communications infrastructure, particularly as Kenya approaches the 2027 General Election. His posts refer to allegations raised during the 2017 election concerning the company's involvement in election processes. Safaricom denied those allegations. The historical controversy does not establish misconduct in future elections, but it illustrates why telecommunications providers involved in sensitive public infrastructure should operate under transparent and independently tested safeguards. Any role in election-results transmission should be governed by clear contracts, technical standards, cybersecurity requirements and oversight arrangements established by the relevant electoral authorities. Questions about the integrity of election infrastructure deserve evidence-based examination rather than speculation about future political outcomes. Safaricom's responsibility is to ensure that its systems operate securely, reliably and in accordance with the law, regardless of which political actors participate in an election. Shareholders Deserve Answers About DigiFarm and Corporate Governance Safaricom is not merely a telecommunications operator. It is a publicly traded company with obligations to shareholders, regulators, customers and the wider market. Those obligations make its financial reporting and corporate governance arrangements matters of legitimate public interest. The DigiFarm disclosures demonstrate that substantial financial support has been provided to a subsidiary operating under a repayment arrangement linked to future positive returns. The records also establish that expected credit losses have been recognised. What they do not establish is that Sh4 billion has disappeared, that management intends to conceal losses or that any executive has committed fraud. Those claims require additional evidence. Shareholders should nevertheless be able to obtain clear explanations about DigiFarm's financial position, the reasons for continuing support, the assumptions behind impairment calculations and the company's strategy for achieving sustainable returns. Similarly, questions concerning procurement, executive departures and data protection should be addressed through verifiable records and independent oversight. The Capital Markets Authority, relevant company auditors and data-protection regulators may have legitimate interests in particular aspects of these matters where credible evidence indicates possible non-compliance. The Questions Safaricom's Leadership Must Answer The allegations surrounding Safaricom's leadership cannot be resolved through social media exchanges alone. The company should clarify the financial basis of the reported Sh4 billion DigiFarm claim and disclose whether any additional material impairment or write-off has been proposed or approved. It should explain the board's oversight of DigiFarm funding, including the criteria used to determine whether continued financial support is commercially justified. The company should also address whether any branding or printing contracts have been awarded to businesses connected to Ndegwa's family, and if so, how potential conflicts were managed. Questions concerning Dilip Pal's professional and employment compliance should be resolved through the applicable records and regulatory requirements. Finally, the company should explain the mechanisms available to executives and employees who raise concerns about customer-data handling, including the protections against retaliation. These questions do not presume guilt. They concern the transparency expected of a company entrusted with public investment, communications infrastructure and sensitive personal information. A Corporate Giant Cannot Afford a Crisis of Confidence Safaricom's importance to Kenya's economy makes accountability especially important. Its financial decisions affect shareholders, its services support businesses and households, and its telecommunications infrastructure plays a central role in national connectivity. That influence creates a corresponding obligation to maintain strong internal controls, independent governance and credible systems for addressing complaints. Nyakundi's allegations have placed several serious questions before the public. Some concern matters documented in Safaricom's financial statements; others remain unverified claims requiring contracts, internal records or regulatory findings. The distinction matters because accountability is strengthened by evidence, not weakened by it. The immediate challenge for Safaricom's leadership is to demonstrate that its financial decisions, procurement arrangements and customer-data safeguards can withstand independent scrutiny. The Sh4 billion DigiFarm allegation deserves a clear accounting explanation. The procurement claims deserve examination against supplier and contract records. The allegations concerning executive retaliation deserve a fair and confidential investigative process. For Peter Ndegwa, Adil Khawaja and Dilip Pal, the appropriate response is not a contest of personalities but a transparent demonstration that Safaricom's governance systems are working as intended. Until the relevant records are examined, the most serious accusations remain unresolved. What is already clear is that the questions surrounding DigiFarm's financing and the company's wider governance arrangements warrant substantive answers.

kenya-today.com · world
Next page →