Wiper Patriotic Front leader Stephen Kalonzo Musyoka has announced that the Court of Appeal has declined the government’s application to suspend High Court orders declaring the sale of Safaricom shares null and void.
In a statement issued from London on Tuesday, October 13, 2026, Kalonzo said he attended virtual proceedings before the Court of Appeal in the Safaricom PLC shares sale case, where he represents the petitioners led by Tony Gachoka and others.
The appellate court, comprising Justices Kimaru, Okello and M’Inoti, rejected the government’s request for a stay of the High Court orders issued on September 15, 2026, according to Kalonzo.
The ruling means the High Court orders remain in force as the substantive appeal proceeds.
“The message is clear: the rule of law must prevail, and no transaction involving our national assets is above constitutional scrutiny,” Kalonzo said.
He maintained that the future of Kenya’s national assets must be determined by the Constitution and the law rather than the interests of those in power.
The Safaricom shares sale dispute has drawn attention to questions surrounding the legality and constitutional oversight of transactions involving strategic national assets.
Kalonzo, who also leads The Ukombozi Alliance (TUA) and serves as principal of the United Alternative Government (UAG), reiterated his commitment to constitutionalism, accountable leadership and the protection of national interests.
The former Vice President said he would also address Chatham House in London on Tuesday on the opposition’s outlook and policy agenda ahead of the August 2027 General Election.
He said his address would focus on the kind of Kenya the opposition seeks to build, anchored on constitutional governance, economic justice and the protection of national interests.
“Kenya must come first. The Constitution must stand. The people must prevail,” Kalonzo declared.
The court’s decision, as described in Kalonzo’s statement, concerns the government’s application to suspend the existing High Court orders. It does not, by itself, determine the final outcome of the substantive appeal.
