Safaricom could witness a major shift in its leadership structure if South Africa’s Vodacom succeeds in acquiring an additional stake in the Kenyan telecommunications giant.
A recent filing submitted by Vodafone Group to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission has revealed that the proposed deal would give Vodacom significant influence over the appointment of Safaricom’s future chief executive officers. Under the terms of a newly established shareholder agreement, the Safaricom board would be required to select the company’s CEO from candidates nominated by Vodafone Kenya Limited, the investment vehicle through which the group exercises control over the Kenyan telecom operator.
The agreement, filed on May 22, 2026, also outlines plans for Safaricom to operate fully as a subsidiary under Vodacom’s structure. If the transaction is completed, the company would align with Vodacom’s policies in areas such as financial reporting, procurement practices, ethical standards, and corporate governance.
Although Vodafone Kenya Limited has pledged to consult with the Kenyan government before appointing or replacing the chairman or chief executive officer, the arrangement indicates that the final influence over executive leadership would rest with the South African controlled entity. The agreement further provides that the chairman of Safaricom’s board must remain a Kenyan citizen, while a majority of senior management positions would continue to be occupied by Kenyans.
These provisions appear aimed at easing concerns over what many observers may view as an increased foreign influence in one of East Africa’s most valuable and strategically important companies.
Safaricom occupies a unique position within Kenya’s economy. Beyond its role as a telecommunications provider, the company operates M Pesa, the widely used mobile money platform that has transformed financial transactions across the region. As a result, decisions regarding its leadership have often attracted intense public and political interest.
The appointment of Peter Ndegwa in 2019 marked a significant moment in the company’s history. Following the death of former Chief Executive Officer Bob Collymore, Ndegwa became the first Kenyan to lead Safaricom after years of expatriate leadership. His elevation was widely seen as a milestone in the localisation of the company’s top management.
The latest developments, however, could signal a return to a structure similar to the one that existed before 2020, when the company was led by a foreign chief executive alongside a Kenyan chairman. The prospect of such a transition is expected to reignite conversations around national interests, corporate control, and the future direction of the telecom giant.
Safaricom’s ownership journey dates back to its launch in 2000, when Vodafone acquired a 40 percent stake in the business and appointed South African born Michael Joseph as its first chief executive officer. In 2007, Vodafone transferred most of its holding to Vodacom while retaining a smaller direct interest in the company.
Under the current proposal, Vodacom intends to purchase the Kenyan government’s 15 percent stake in Safaricom for KSh 204.3 billion while also taking over Vodafone’s remaining 5 percent interest. If the transaction proceeds as planned, Vodacom’s ownership would increase to 55 percent, making it the majority shareholder.
The agreement also includes a provision for an upfront dividend payment of KSh 40.2 billion to the Kenyan government on its remaining 20 percent stake, with the amount expected to be recovered through future dividend distributions.
Despite receiving approvals from Parliament and regional competition authorities, the transaction has encountered legal challenges. Kenya’s High Court has temporarily halted the deal following a petition contesting the proposed acquisition.
As the legal process unfolds, the future ownership structure of Safaricom and the question of who will eventually lead the company remain uncertain. For now, the agreements outlining a new era of control and leadership remain on hold pending the court’s final decision.
