A responsible conversation about surveillance must begin with one basic truth: every modern state has a duty to keep its people safe. That duty does not disappear because technology is involved. Terror threats, organised crime, child trafficking, cybercrime, money laundering, financial fraud and violent extremism all exploit digital systems. A government that refuses to build lawful intelligence capacity would be abandoning its citizens to danger.

But the second truth is equally important: security power must never become a blank cheque. It must operate under law, judicial restraint, parliamentary scrutiny, institutional accountability and respect for the rights of citizens. The real test, therefore, is not whether a country has surveillance capability. The test is whether the capability is lawful, necessary, proportionate, targeted, auditable and subject to independent oversight.

That is where the recent international framing of Kenya’s surveillance debate becomes problematic. It appears to place suspicion before evidence and insinuation before institutional context. Kenya is not a perfect democracy, but it is also not a helpless dictatorship without courts, Parliament, media, civil society or constitutional safeguards. The country has a noisy public square, active litigation culture, independent media voices, fearless citizens and institutions that can be challenged in court. Any serious foreign report must acknowledge that complexity.

Kenya is imperfect, but it is not voiceless

Kenya elects its leaders. Kenyans criticise their leaders daily. Courts suspend government actions. Parliament debates security, budgets and policy. Citizens protest, sue, expose, organise and vote. That does not make Kenya perfect; it makes Kenya a democracy still under construction. The imperfections are real, but so are the checks and balances.

It is, therefore, unfair to tell Kenya’s story as though the state operates in a vacuum and citizens have no remedies. A fair report would ask hard questions about surveillance, but it would also explain the legal pathways available for challenge, the role of the Judiciary, the role of Parliament, the Data Commissioner, the Communications Authority, civil society litigation and media scrutiny. Without that context, the story risks looking less like accountability and more like selective indictment.

Foreign media houses have every right to investigate Kenya. Kenyans should not fear scrutiny. But scrutiny must be rigorous enough to distinguish between lawful cooperation with security agencies, technical capability, alleged abuse, proven misconduct and political speculation. These are not the same things. Treating them as one creates heat, not light.

Safaricom sits at the centre of daily life; that is why suspicion travels fast

Safaricom is not an ordinary company in Kenya’s public imagination. It carries voice, data, payments, commerce, savings, credit, emergency communication, business records and millions of daily personal interactions. Because of M-PESA and its telecommunications backbone, Safaricom is woven into the nervous system of the economy. When a company occupies such a central position, it becomes easy for fear to attach itself to the brand.

That centrality, however, should not be turned into automatic guilt. A power company is not responsible for every crime committed under electric light. A bank is not guilty merely because criminals use bank accounts. A road agency is not responsible for every getaway vehicle that moves on a highway. In the same way, a telecommunications provider should not be condemned simply because lawful security agencies may request information through legally recognised channels.

The burden of proof must remain high. A company as systemically important as Safaricom should be questioned firmly, but also fairly. Accusations that touch data privacy, national security and human rights require documents, lawful thresholds, timelines, responsible parties and verifiable evidence. They cannot rest on atmosphere alone.

What Safaricom’s public privacy position says

Safaricom’s publicly available privacy materials state that disclosure of personal information is to be done in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. Its privacy statement also says the company assesses and reviews applications for information and may decline requests that do not meet the required threshold. That is an important position because it indicates that Safaricom does not publicly present itself as a passive tap for any person who asks for customer data.

This matters. In a lawful system, a telecom operator is expected to balance three duties at once: protect customer privacy, comply with valid legal obligations, and assist legitimate investigations when the law requires it. That is a difficult position. If the company refuses every request, it may frustrate investigations into serious crimes. If it grants every request, it may violate rights. The right standard is neither obstruction nor surrender. The right standard is lawful, documented, proportionate compliance.

Safaricom should therefore be judged by that standard: what request was made, by whom, under what legal authority, for what purpose, covering which data, during what period, and with what internal approval? That is the evidentiary route. Broad suspicion cannot substitute for that test.

Security can be lawful without being sinister

The ordinary Kenyan understands security at a personal level. People hire guards, lock gates, install CCTV cameras, put alarms in homes, track delivery riders, save emergency numbers and review footage when something goes wrong. None of those steps automatically means a person hates freedom. It means they understand risk.

The state faces a bigger version of the same problem. It must protect airports, borders, financial systems, hospitals, schools, power networks, public events, digital payment rails and citizens moving through public spaces. Done lawfully, intelligence work is not an enemy of democracy. It is part of the infrastructure that allows democracy to survive violence, sabotage and organised criminal networks.

The danger begins when surveillance becomes political, indiscriminate, secretive, unaccountable or detached from judicial and legal safeguards. That danger must be confronted. But it should be confronted with precision. A fair report separates lawful national security from alleged abuse. It does not collapse both into one dramatic conclusion.

Al Jazeera also has questions to answer

Al Jazeera has done important journalism across the world. It has given voice to stories ignored by Western media and has often reported from places where other broadcasters were absent. That record deserves recognition. But no media house is above scrutiny, especially when it investigates other countries while carrying its own institutional baggage.

Al Jazeera describes itself as independent and says it is funded in part by the Qatari government. That alone does not automatically discredit its journalism. Many public broadcasters receive state-linked funding and still produce excellent reporting. The issue is not funding alone; the issue is transparency, consistency and self-reflection. A media house that asks others to open their systems must also be willing to explain its own institutional environment with equal candour.

Qatar is not an ordinary backdrop in this debate. It is a monarchy with a political system very different from Kenya’s. Human-rights organisations have for years raised concerns about migrant workers in Qatar, including wage abuse, harsh labour conditions and exploitation. Many of those workers are from Africa and Asia. A broadcaster headquartered in that environment should be especially careful when lecturing African democracies without also confronting the conditions under its own sky.

The migrant-worker mirror

The treatment of migrant workers in the Gulf remains one of the world’s most uncomfortable labour questions. African workers have cooked, cleaned, built, guarded, driven, carried and served in economies where many have had limited bargaining power and weak protection. If a media house wants to champion accountability in Kenya, it should also devote sustained attention to the African lives that make Qatar’s comfort possible.

That is not an argument for silence on Kenya. It is an argument for consistency. Journalism is strongest when it refuses selective outrage. If surveillance, privacy and human dignity matter in Nairobi, then labour dignity, wage justice and migrant protection must matter in Doha with the same intensity. The camera should not only travel outward. It should also turn inward.

A credible global broadcaster cannot appear courageous abroad and cautious at home. It must be brave in both directions.

What fair reporting would have looked like

A more balanced story would have asked the hard questions but widened the frame. It would have explained Kenya’s constitutional system, the legal provisions around data protection, the legitimate place of national security, the exact nature of the allegations, Safaricom’s stated privacy obligations, and the difference between a technical network capability and proven unlawful spying.

It would also have given audiences the legal vocabulary needed to understand the issue: lawful basis, production orders, necessity, proportionality, targeted requests, data minimisation, audit trails, internal access controls, court oversight and remedies for abuse. These concepts matter because they prevent the public from being pushed into fear without understanding the law.

Most importantly, fair reporting would avoid implying that the existence of surveillance tools automatically proves illegal surveillance. A kitchen knife can prepare food or commit a crime. A database can protect citizens or violate them. A telecom network can connect families, power business, assist investigations or be misused by bad actors. The moral question depends on authority, purpose, process and accountability.

Safaricom should still lead with more transparency

Defending Safaricom from unfair accusation does not mean asking Safaricom to hide behind silence. The company has an opportunity to strengthen public trust by doing more than issuing privacy statements. It can publish clearer periodic transparency reports showing the number of law-enforcement requests received, the categories of requests, the number complied with, the number rejected, the legal bases required and the safeguards used to protect customers.

Such reporting can be aggregated to avoid compromising active investigations or national security. Many global digital companies already use transparency reporting to show that compliance with lawful requests does not mean surrendering user rights. Safaricom can turn a moment of suspicion into a leadership moment for Kenya’s entire digital economy.

The best answer to fear is not anger. It is evidence, process and openness. Safaricom’s strongest defence will always be a documented compliance culture that citizens can understand.

The standard Kenya should demand

Kenya should not reject foreign reporting merely because it is foreign. Nor should Kenyans accept every foreign frame as gospel merely because it comes with international production quality. The correct posture is patriotic seriousness: welcome scrutiny, demand evidence, defend institutions where they are unfairly attacked, and reform systems where weaknesses are real.

The same standard should apply to government. National security agencies must never use security as an excuse for unlawful political surveillance. Parliament must not sleep. Courts must remain alert. Regulators must act. Telecom operators must protect customers. Civil society must ask difficult questions. Journalists must investigate responsibly. Citizens must remain vigilant without being manipulated into panic.

In that balance lies the truth. Kenya needs security, but not lawlessness. Kenya needs privacy, but not impunity for criminals. Kenya needs global media scrutiny, but not selective storytelling. Kenya needs strong companies like Safaricom, but strong companies must remain accountable. That is the democratic bargain.

Criticism must be fair to be useful

The debate around surveillance in Kenya is too important to be handled casually. It touches life, liberty, privacy, national security, business trust and the credibility of public institutions. It deserves more than dramatic suspicion. It deserves evidence, law, context and balance.

Al Jazeera has the right to investigate Kenya. Kenya has the right to ask Al Jazeera to investigate itself with equal courage. Safaricom has the duty to obey the law, protect customer data and cooperate only through lawful channels. Citizens have the right to demand both security and privacy. The state has the burden of proving that its power is used for protection, not intimidation.

A mature democracy should not fear hard questions. But hard questions must be honest. When the camera turns on Kenya, it should capture the whole country: the flaws, the freedoms, the courts, the Parliament, the press, the risks, the safeguards, the companies holding the economy together and the citizens determined to keep power accountable. Anything less is not journalism at its best. It is only half the story.

Read Also: World’s Hottest Month Sparks Fresh Calls For Urgent Investment In Renewable Energy For Africa