NAIROBI, Kenya, June 16 – The High Court has declined to bar senior lawyer John Ohaga and law firm TripleOKLaw from representing the Attorney General in a case challenging the government’s proposed sale of a 15 percent stake in Safaricom to Vodacom.
The court ruled that the petitioners had failed to demonstrate any actual or perceived conflict of interest that would justify disqualifying the lawyer from acting for the State.
Petitioners had argued that Ohaga’s position as chairman of the M-Pesa Foundation and his firm’s previous work for Safaricom created a conflict of interest in the proceedings.
They also cited a January court ruling that restricted public entities from engaging external lawyers.
However, the court found that M-Pesa Foundation and Safaricom are separate entities and noted that there was no evidence that confidential information could be used to the detriment of any party in the case.
It further observed that both Safaricom and the Attorney General were defending the same position in the proceedings.
The judges also held that the Attorney General has the legal authority to engage external counsel when necessary and that the Nakuru court orders restricting the hiring of private lawyers by public bodies were not intended to bar the Attorney General from retaining outside legal representation.
The case is one of several petitions challenging the legality of the government’s planned divestiture of a 15 percent shareholding in Safaricom, with petitioners raising concerns over public procurement, governance, conflicts of interest and data sovereignty.
In its ruling, the court emphasized that litigants have a right to legal representation of their choice and that disqualification of counsel can only be justified where there is evidence of real prejudice or conflict of interest.
