The State of Surveillance in Kenya: The Precarious Balance Between National Security and Privacy Rights Amidst Nationwide Disappearances
Nairobi has been awash with a sudden resurgence of abductions and disappearances of personalities known to critique the sitting government. These kidnappings have become endemic to the Kenyan capital following the #RejectFinanceBill2024 protests that ravaged Nairobi and wider parts of the country from June to August 2024. The protests were premised on widespread dissatisfaction by the electorate on a fiscal bill which suggested large tax increases on certain commodities by the Government of Kenya.
While much of the protests have come to an end, following the withdrawal of the Finance Bill 2024, abductions continue to occur with reports arising of missing persons Reports arise of missing persons towards the end of December and early into the new year as a tally of 82 cases of missing persons since June 2024 accumulates.
This stark premise begs the question – how much sensitive information, especially location and digital footprint, is a state legally privy to? Surveillance in Kenya has evolved into a pivotal tool for governance, fuelled by increasing demands for national security and public order. The Kenyan government asserts that surveillance systems are crucial for combating crime, countering terrorism, and ensuring public safety. This rationale has intensified following various threats, including militant attacks and internal dissent.
The 2024 Kenya Finance Bill protests epitomised the delicate balance between maintaining security and upholding civil liberties. According to Reuters, the protests underscored a growing public mistrust of government intentions, particularly as financial strain on citizens deepened. Civil society groups, activists, and opposition leaders criticised the government for resorting to authoritarian measures, including surveillance, to stifle dissent.
Kenya’s National Intelligence Service (NIS) plays a key role in this surveillance framework. Historically modelled after British intelligence systems, the NIS has expanded its operations to encompass cyber surveillance, leveraging advanced technologies to monitor and predict potential security threats. However, concerns linger about whether these efforts align with the constitutional right to privacy enshrined in the Kenyan Bill of Rights, which protects citizens' fundamental rights and freedoms.
State Surveillance via Telecommunication Networks
Kenya’s surveillance apparatus heavily relies on telecommunication networks, with Safaricom, the largest mobile service provider, at the helm. In 2014, the Kenyan government partnered with Safaricom to implement the National Surveillance, Communication, and Control System (NSCCS) in Nairobi and Mombasa. This system, funded in part by foreign loans, aimed to integrate CCTV cameras, facial recognition, and data analysis capabilities to enhance urban security. The NSCCS was designed to assist law enforcement agencies in monitoring high-crime areas, tracking criminal activities, and responding swiftly to security threats, all while centralising control over urban surveillance operations.
However, Safaricom’s involvement in the nation’s surveillance efforts has sparked controversy as allegations surfaced about the company’s compliance with government demands for customer data. In 2023, the U.S. Ambassador to Kenya accused the government of engaging in unlawful mobile phone surveillance. Reports implicated Safaricom in these activities, with the Nation Media Group (NMG) highlighting a pattern of collusion between telecom operators and law enforcement agencies.
NMG’s exposé, revealed how law enforcement agencies use mobile phone metadata to track and capture suspects covertly. Through triangulation techniques, authorities access location data, call logs, and text messages. Though these methods have been instrumental in crime-solving, critics argue that bypass due process and disproportionately target activists, journalists, and government critics.
Implementation of Surveillance
At the core of it, the mechanics of Kenya’s telecommunication-based surveillance involve a combination of real-time monitoring and historical data analysis. Security agencies reportedly exploit International Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI) catchers – commonly referred to as Stingrays – to intercept phone communications and track users' locations. These devices mimic cell towers to deceive mobile phones into connecting, enabling the capture of call data and messages, often without the knowledge or consent of the individuals being monitored. Stingrays are particularly effective in densely populated areas, where their range can encompass hundreds of devices, making them a powerful but controversial tool for mass surveillance.
In addition to IMSI catchers, Kenya’s surveillance infrastructure relies heavily on an extensive network of CCTV cameras installed in major urban centres like Nairobi and Mombasa. Many of these cameras are equipped with advanced AI-driven facial recognition technology capable of identifying individuals in real time. This technology is often integrated with national identification databases, allowing law enforcement to cross-reference faces captured on camera with personal details stored in government systems. While such capabilities have been touted as crucial for crime prevention and counter-terrorism efforts, they have also been criticised for their potential to target dissenters and activists.
Beyond public spaces, surveillance extends to digital communications. Internet service providers (ISPs) and mobile network operators are sometimes required to provide security agencies with access to customer metadata and communication logs. Such practices are facilitated by legal frameworks that grant the government broad powers to monitor communications under the guise of national security. However, the lack of clear oversight mechanisms and the secretive nature of these operations have fuelled concerns about abuse of power. For instance, reports have emerged of individuals being tracked and detained based on their mobile phone activities, raising alarms about the erosion of privacy rights.
Moreover, Kenya’s partnerships with foreign technology providers, including controversial companies such as the Niv, Shalev and Omri - NSO Group – implicated in global surveillance scandals – have further complicated the issue. For example, some surveillance equipment is acquired through opaque contracts, often with limited public accountability. This includes spyware and advanced monitoring systems that enable deep packet inspection, allowing authorities to intercept and analyse internet traffic. The use of such technologies, coupled with insufficient regulatory safeguards, has amplified fears of state overreach and the potential for misuse against political opponents or critical voices.
Implications of State Surveillance
Regulation of Social Media
The government’s approach to social media regulation further illustrates its broader surveillance agenda. In January 2025, Kenya’s new ICT Cabinet Secretary, William Kabogo, announced plans to tighten control over social media platforms. Officially justified as a measure against hate speech and misinformation, critics view it as a tool for suppressing dissent, particularly in the wake of anti-government protests. Concerns persist about the potential erosion of free expression under such regulations.
Historical attempts to regulate social media, such as the 2019 Social Media Bill, provide context for these developments. The proposed law aimed to introduce stringent requirements for users, including mandatory registration of social media accounts. While the bill was shelved amid public backlash, its re-emergence in different forms reflects persistent governmental efforts to monitor and control digital spaces. Noteworthy, is that this is not an isolated incident across the continent. In Nigeria, a similar piece of legislation, the Protection from Internet Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill, was enacted in 2019 with a primary function to criminalise the use of the social media in peddling false or malicious information. It too has been marred by ambiguous applicability. What constitutes malice? Does information opposing the government’s policies fall in this docket?
Surveillance Infrastructure and International Involvement
Kenya’s surveillance infrastructure has been significantly bolstered through international partnerships. A controversial deal with Israel facilitated the installation of advanced CCTV systems in major cities. This multi-billion-shilling agreement reportedly includes provisions for data-sharing and operational support from Israeli intelligence firms that critics argue could compromise Kenya’s sovereignty and exacerbate privacy concerns.
Balancing Security and Privacy
Kenya’s increasing reliance on surveillance underscores the tension between national security and individual privacy. Proponents argue that surveillance technologies are indispensable for addressing modern security challenges. For instance, CCTV systems in Nairobi have contributed to reduced urban crime rates and the apprehension of high-profile suspects.
However, the lack of robust oversight mechanisms raises significant concerns. Kenya’s Data Protection Act of 2019, intended to safeguard personal information, remains inadequately enforced. Moreover, judicial oversight of surveillance operations is often circumvented, eroding public trust in government institutions.
The Road Ahead
To address these challenges, Kenya must prioritise transparency and accountability in its surveillance practices. This includes:
Strengthening Oversight: Independent oversight bodies should be empowered to monitor surveillance operations, ensure use of best business practices and investigate abuses.
Enhancing Legal Protections: The Data Protection Act must be rigorously enforced, with clear penalties for violations by state and corporate entities.
Public Awareness: Educating citizens about their digital rights can foster greater demand for accountability.
International Collaboration: While partnerships with foreign entities can enhance technological capacity, Kenya must ensure such collaborations respect national sovereignty and privacy standards.
Conclusion
The state of surveillance in Kenya reflects a broader global trend of balancing security needs with civil liberties. While technological advancements have enhanced the government’s ability to address security challenges, the lack of adequate oversight and transparency poses risks to democratic values. By implementing the aforementioned reforms and fostering public dialogue, Kenya can put an end to unsanctioned arrests and disappearances while ensuring strategic and legal deployment of surveillance.
