Gachoka seeks to bar lawyer Ohaga in Safaricom case, cite conflict of interest claims
Activist Tony Gachoka has moved to court seeking to block Senior Counsel John Ohaga from representing the Attorney General in a high-profile case challenging the government’s proposed sale of its shares in Safaricom PLC, citing alleged conflict of interest.
In the application filed before a three-judge bench, Gachoka also wants the court to bar Andrew Musangi from acting for Safaricom PLC in the same proceedings. Musangi also serves as the chairperson of the Central Bank of Kenya (CBK) board.
Gachoka argues that Ohaga should be disqualified from representing the State or any government entity in the matter, claiming that his previous professional engagements with Safaricom or related commercial interests create a potential conflict of interest.
“Unless restrained, the continued participation of conflicted counsel risks prejudice to public interest litigation and constitutional compliance,” Gachoka submitted.
He further contends that the dispute goes beyond commercial interests, raising broader constitutional and public law questions, including financial system stability and regulatory oversight.
According to Gachoka, allowing the current legal representation to continue would undermine public confidence in the justice system and the integrity of the proceedings.
“There is a real risk of prejudice to the integrity of proceedings and public confidence in the justice system,” he told the court.
Through his lawyer Suiyanka Lempaa, Gachoka also argued that Musangi’s dual role as a financial sector regulator and counsel for a regulated entity creates both actual and perceived conflict of interest, contrary to Article 75(1) of the Constitution and the Conflict of Interest Act, 2025.
He maintained that a reasonable observer would conclude there is a likelihood of bias, warning that such arrangements undermine regulatory independence and governance standards.
“Such dual role undermines independence of regulatory institutions, public confidence in governance and the integrity of public office,” he said.
Gachoka further cited a January 12, 2026 High Court ruling in Nakuru by Justice Samwel Mohochi Mukira, which temporarily barred public entities from hiring external lawyers or private law firms.
He noted that although the decision has been appealed by the Law Society of Kenya and the Attorney General, a bench of appellate judges declined to stay it, allowing the matter to proceed to full hearing.
He argued that the ruling reinforces the need for strict adherence to constitutional and statutory requirements in the engagement of external counsel.
“Allowing conflicted counsel to act would undermine Article 10 on rule of law, transparency and accountability, Article 157(9) on the independence of the Attorney General, as well as the Advocates Act and professional ethics rules,” he submitted.
