Nairobi — The Director of Criminal Investigations (DCI), Mohamed Amin, has denied allegations that detectives are colluding with mobile service providers to conduct unauthorized tracking and monitoring of citizens.
This follows a recent exposé in the Nation alleging that state agencies and telecom companies had been accessing call data and location information to track and apprehend suspects without proper authorization.
Speaking on Wednesday, Amin dismissed the allegations as baseless, emphasizing that any data obtained from service providers is acquired through lawful procedures. “We don’t do that, completely,” he asserted.
“If we need information from service providers, we follow lawful procedures. We go to court, swear affidavits, and serve that court order to the service providers.” Amin also clarified that mobile phone data constitutes a minor part of investigative procedures.
“The mobile phone analysis only contributes to one percent of our investigations,” he explained, highlighting that the DCI relies primarily on forensic analysis, witness accounts, and other forms of evidence collection. “How were we executing our investigations before the evolution of mobile phones?” he posed.
The revelations have sparked backlash among Kenyan citizens, civil society, and the international community on concerns of potential privacy breaches.
U.S. Ambassador to Kenya, Meg Whitman, expressed caution, urging the government to respect privacy rights and uphold democratic principles.
“Privacy and rule of law are fundamental in democracies,” Whitman remarked, calling for transparency and adherence to legal standards.
This alleged surveillance controversy comes at a time of mounting public scrutiny over police conduct in Kenya, particularly following reports of abductions and killings of young Kenyans who participated in recent protests.
In June, Kenya’s Gen Z population organized nationwide demonstrations against police brutality, economic hardship, and social injustices. While these protests initially drew significant support and attention, reports soon surfaced of young demonstrators being abducted, tortured, or, in some cases, killed.
Human rights organizations argue that unauthorized mobile phone surveillance could have been a tool used to track protesters after the events, leading to concerns about overreach and misuse of technology.
Amid these concerns, the National Police Service has faced strong criticism for what many describe as a pattern of excessive force, unauthorized surveillance, and unlawful detentions. Rights groups, activists, and opposition leaders have raised alarms about the lack of accountability within the police service, urging reforms to ensure citizen rights are protected.
The Gen Z protests were seen as a powerful response to the frustrations of Kenya’s youth, who have increasingly felt marginalized by the government’s lack of accountability and economic challenges. Reports of abductions and deaths in connection to these protests have only added to the public outcry, with families calling for investigations into alleged police misconduct.
Amin’s reassurances have done little to quell public concern, as calls grow for an independent investigation into the claims of unlawful surveillance.
Analysts and advocacy groups insist that if there is even a possibility of state-sanctioned surveillance, it would signal a significant violation of civil liberties. Several lawmakers have also indicated their intent to pursue legislation that would enhance oversight of surveillance technologies, ensuring any data collection follows strict legal and procedural protocols.
In response to these demands, Amin emphasized that Kenya’s investigative processes continue to prioritize lawful and transparent measures, with oversight mechanisms in place to prevent abuse.
However, critics argue that without independent oversight, such claims of compliance are difficult to verify.
The scandal underscores a growing demand in Kenya for both enhanced privacy protections and police accountability, with citizens pressing for systemic reforms to protect democratic freedoms.
