The accusations have placed Karen Basiye, Safaricom PLC’s Director of Sustainable Business and Social Impact, at the centre of growing scrutiny over the management of one of Kenya’s largest corporate social investment programmes.
Basiye’s office oversees Safaricom’s sustainability and social impact agenda, including programmes implemented through Safaricom Foundation and M-Pesa Foundation.
The claims have expanded beyond complaints about political favouritism and now include accusations that some projects were recorded in official reports despite not being completed on the ground, procurement controls were bypassed and payments were made to entities whose connections with foundation officials require investigation.
There are also claims of disagreements within the foundation’s leadership, with some officials reportedly demanding accountability while others are accused of supporting a quiet administrative exit for Basiye instead of a documented disciplinary investigation.
Safaricom has not publicly released an audit confirming that money was stolen, while no court, the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission or another statutory investigative agency has established criminal wrongdoing by Basiye.
However, the amounts involved, the vulnerability of the intended beneficiaries and the senior position occupied by Basiye make the accusations too serious to be settled through silence, public relations statements or an unexplained management reshuffle.
Sh271 Million Channelled Through Ndoto Zetu Projects
Safaricom Foundation’s own figures show that since 2019, it has invested Sh271 million in more than 1,400 community projects through its flagship Ndoto Zetu programme.
The initiative supports community proposals in education, health and economic empowerment, with schools, hospitals, youth groups, persons living with disabilities and underserved communities among its intended beneficiaries.
In 2024, the foundation announced another Sh170 million allocation for community projects, demonstrating the substantial amounts passing through programmes managed under Safaricom’s social impact structure.
Questions have also been raised over a Sh100 million allocation associated with a flagship community programme and approximately Sh20 million reportedly directed towards Usamaria, an initiative intended to settle medical bills for patients unable to leave public hospitals because of unpaid balances.
Other resources have been directed towards schools, healthcare facilities, water projects and community programmes connected to Safaricom’s sponsorship activities, including educational projects implemented alongside the Chapa Dimba football competition.
These figures show that the controversy is not about a small departmental budget because the foundation controls hundreds of millions of shillings and makes decisions that can determine whether struggling schools, patients and communities receive essential support.
Claims of Projects Existing Only in Reports
Among the most troubling accusations is that some projects may have been recorded as completed or supported without the promised work being fully visible within the beneficiary communities.
Whistleblower accounts claim that certain projects appeared in reports but could not be matched with equivalent results on the ground.
No complete list of the affected projects, procurement files, contractors or payments has been made public, making independent verification difficult.
That absence makes the publication of Safaricom Foundation’s complete project database an urgent corporate governance matter.
Safaricom should disclose every project funded since 2019, its location, approved budget, contractor, completion status, beneficiary organisation and the officers responsible for approving and verifying the work.
The company should also publish evidence showing how each beneficiary was selected and whether officials independently inspected projects before recording them as completed.
Without this information, Safaricom customers and shareholders are expected to accept the foundation’s impact figures without being able to verify whether every reported project exists, was completed within budget or delivered the promised benefits.
Procurement and Payments Under Scrutiny
The accusations also concern procurement processes that were allegedly conducted outside the foundation’s normal financial controls.
Insiders claim that some transactions were structured in ways that made the movement of money difficult to follow and that payments were made to entities whose connections with foundation officials require investigation.
No contractor has been publicly identified as having unlawfully received foundation money, while bank statements, invoices, tender evaluation records and beneficial ownership documents proving diversion have not been released.
Even so, the claims present Safaricom with straightforward questions that can be answered through records rather than general statements.
The company can establish whether competitive procurement was conducted, whether winning contractors disclosed their beneficial owners, whether conflicts of interest were declared and whether payments matched verified work.
An independent review should also examine whether the same suppliers repeatedly received contracts, whether prices were inflated and whether employees or trustees had direct or indirect relationships with companies implementing foundation projects.
Political Favouritism and the Borehole Question
Basiye’s leadership has separately faced accusations that foundation projects, including boreholes and other visible community developments, were directed towards areas associated with influential politicians supporting the national government.
Critics claim that some projects were presented alongside government-allied leaders, creating the impression that corporate charity was being used to strengthen political relationships or allow politicians to claim credit for projects financed by Safaricom.
The appearance of elected leaders at project launches does not, by itself, prove that a project was politically allocated or that any official committed wrongdoing.
However, Safaricom Foundation serves customers across every political, ethnic and regional division in Kenya, meaning its project selection process must remain visibly independent from political patronage.
The company should publish the geographical distribution of all projects and explain whether areas represented by government-allied politicians received a disproportionate share of funding compared with constituencies represented by opposition leaders.
It should also disclose who proposed each borehole, school, hospital or community project and whether the request came from residents, local organisations, Safaricom staff, elected leaders or national government officials.
Safaricom cannot credibly claim political neutrality while withholding the records that would prove its projects were selected through objective community assessments rather than influence from powerful politicians.
Questions Surrounding Basiye’s Wealth
Questions have also been raised over whether Basiye’s personal and family investments can be reconciled with her known employment income.
Unnamed sources have claimed that she maintained substantial foreign currency accounts and that money extracted from foundation projects may have been moved through personal investments, family businesses and other financial arrangements.
These are extremely serious claims involving possible financial crime, but no bank records, property records, company documents or lawful asset-tracing report has been publicly released to prove that foundation money entered accounts connected to Basiye.
The claims should consequently not be treated as established fact.
They do, however, create a basis for an independent forensic investigation capable of comparing procurement payments, contractor ownership, bank transactions and assets acquired during the period under review.
Such an investigation should be conducted by an external firm reporting to an independent board committee rather than officials who worked with Basiye or participated in approving the disputed programmes.
Basiye should also be given a fair opportunity to respond to every specific transaction, project and asset placed under examination.
Trustees Accused of Failing to Act
The controversy has also reached the Safaricom Foundation Board of Trustees, which is responsible for governance, financial oversight and protection of the foundation’s charitable mission.
Claims have emerged that some trustees may have ignored warning signs, resisted accountability or benefited from arrangements connected to the disputed spending.
There are also claims that Joseph Ogutu, who chairs the foundation’s Board of Trustees, raised concerns and encountered resistance from other members while seeking stronger accountability.
Safaricom Foundation publicly identifies Ogutu among its senior leaders and lists Dr Githinji Gitahi as a trustee.
It has also been claimed that Gitahi played a significant role in Basiye’s appointment, although no publicly available appointment record has confirmed that assertion.
There is no published evidence showing that Ogutu formally reported missing money, that any identified trustee benefited from foundation contracts or that the board received and suppressed an audit establishing wrongdoing.
Safaricom should clarify whether its trustees received internal complaints about Basiye, whether any investigation was commissioned and whether trustees accused of conflicts of interest recused themselves from deliberations.
The board should also state whether any trustee, relative or associated organisation received payments, contracts, grants or other financial benefits from either Safaricom Foundation or M-Pesa Foundation.
Claims of a Quiet Exit and Internal Protection
One of the strongest accusations is that a group within the foundation’s board considered placing Basiye on terminal leave as part of a quiet departure rather than subjecting her to formal disciplinary proceedings.
A terminal leave arrangement allows an employee to leave while using accumulated leave days before the official end of employment.
Such an arrangement is not evidence of guilt and may arise during ordinary retirement, resignation or restructuring.
However, using terminal leave to avoid investigating documented financial complaints would raise serious governance concerns because it could allow records, decisions and individual responsibility to escape formal examination.
Safaricom should disclose whether Basiye remains in her position, whether she has been placed on leave, whether her departure has been discussed and whether any proposed exit is connected to an internal investigation.
The company should also preserve emails, procurement documents, payment records, project reports and board minutes connected to all programmes now facing questions.
Any deletion, alteration or concealment of records after formal concerns were raised could become more damaging than the original accusations.
Safaricom’s Public Commitment to Governance
Safaricom presents itself as a company governed by strong controls, risk management systems and environmental, social and governance standards.
Its corporate governance reports identify Basiye as a senior official involved in Safaricom’s sustainability and social impact functions, while the company’s board operates committees responsible for risk and environmental, social and governance oversight.
This means the controversy cannot be dismissed as a minor issue confined to an independent charitable organisation.
Basiye occupies a Safaricom leadership position, the company promotes the foundation’s projects as part of its national identity and the Safaricom brand receives the reputational benefit created by those programmes.
Safaricom has also previously dismissed employees for fraud, system manipulation and violations of company policies, meaning lower-ranking staff have historically faced severe consequences when internal controls were breached.
Allowing accusations involving senior leadership to disappear without a documented investigation would create the impression that accountability depends on an employee’s position within the company.
What an Independent Investigation Must Examine
A credible investigation should begin with all Safaricom Foundation and M-Pesa Foundation projects approved under Basiye’s leadership rather than relying on a small sample selected by management.
Investigators should compare approved budgets against actual payments, inspect projects physically and establish whether the listed beneficiaries received what was promised.
They should identify the directors and beneficial owners of every contractor, supplier, consultant and implementing partner paid through the programmes.
The investigation should also examine whether contractors were connected to Safaricom employees, foundation trustees, politicians, relatives or businesses associated with decision-makers.
Every borehole, classroom, hospital intervention and community project should be mapped by county and constituency to determine whether political relationships influenced the distribution of funds.
Foreign currency transactions, personal investment claims and accusations involving family businesses should only be examined through lawful financial records rather than speculation about an executive’s lifestyle.
The findings should then be published with the names of implicated companies and officials, the amounts involved, the affected projects and the disciplinary or legal action recommended.
Vulnerable Communities Deserve Answers
The money under examination was intended for Kenyans who often have no alternative source of assistance.
It was meant for children studying in poorly equipped schools, patients detained in hospitals because they could not settle medical bills, persons living with disabilities, unemployed youth and communities lacking clean water or basic infrastructure.
Every shilling improperly diverted from such programmes would represent more than an accounting loss because it would amount to resources taken from people selected precisely because they were already vulnerable.
Safaricom Foundation has built its reputation around transforming lives, while Ndoto Zetu was presented as a programme through which ordinary Kenyans could identify the needs of their communities and receive practical support.
That reputation now depends on whether Safaricom confronts the accusations openly or attempts to protect the brand through silence.
Safaricom Must Publish the Records
The claims against Basiye and the foundation remain accusations rather than established findings, but they are specific enough to demand a detailed institutional response.
A general denial would not answer whether projects were completed, procurement rules were followed, contractors were independent or political influence affected project selection.
Safaricom should publish the terms of reference of any investigation, identify the independent firm conducting it and commit to releasing the final findings.
It should also explain whether Basiye and any trustees named in internal complaints remain involved in decisions concerning the investigation.
Until those records are released, questions will remain over whether millions intended for Kenya’s most vulnerable communities produced the projects reported by the foundation or disappeared inside a system protected by corporate secrecy.
For Safaricom, the matter is no longer only about defending one executive.
It is about proving that the company applies the same standards of transparency, integrity and accountability to the senior officials managing its charitable millions as it applies to ordinary employees accused of breaking its rules.
