Kenya’s Competition Authority (CAK) has opted not to conduct a full domestic review of Vodacom Group’s bid to increase its stake in Safaricom, instead deferring the assessment to regional competition watchdogs. The move comes as Vodacom advances a multi‑billion‑shilling plan to raise its shareholding in Kenya’s largest telecommunications operator from 35% to 55%.
Under the proposed transaction, Vodacom intends to acquire 15% of Safaricom from the Government of Kenya and an additional 5% from Vodafone, its parent company. The deal is valued at approximately KSh 272 billion (over US$1.6 billion). If approved, Vodacom would become the controlling shareholder of Safaricom, while the Kenyan government would maintain a 20% stake and the remaining 25% would stay with public investors.
Ordinarily, a transaction of this scale would trigger a comprehensive merger review by CAK, involving detailed competition analysis and regulatory fees. However, the authority has clarified that the deal meets the thresholds for regional oversight, meaning the review will instead be undertaken by the East African Community Competition Authority (EACCA) and the COMESA Competition and Consumer Commission (CCCC). This is because the entities involved operate across several countries within the two blocs.
Although CAK will not lead the investigation, it will submit its perspectives on potential implications for competition and consumer welfare within Kenya. The decision represents a significant procedural shift, reflecting a broader trend in which cross‑border mergers are increasingly handled at regional levels to avoid duplicated reviews and reduce the regulatory burden on multinational businesses.
The case also marks one of the earliest major applications of the EAC Competition Act, which only became operational in late 2025. Given Safaricom’s central role in Kenya’s digital and financial ecosystem, particularly through its mobile money platform M‑Pesa, the upcoming regional assessments are expected to be closely watched. Regulators will be weighing not only competition concerns, but also questions of national interest, market stability, and investor confidence as they evaluate the transaction.
