Raila Odinga’s conflicts with Kenya’s big business were not mere skirmishes but deliberate political gambits. This was seen as a way to dramatise power, to sharpen public accountability, and to challenge what he saw as an unholy alliance between the state and private enterprise.
Safaricom: The tech giant in the crosshairs
Safaricom was perhaps the most frequent target of Raila’s ire. In 2017, following a contested election, he accused telecom operators of facilitating irregularities in vote transmission. The company’s dominance — particularly in mobile money and data services — made it a symbol of how private infrastructure could be wielded in political conflicts.
In 2023, during a period of nationwide protests, Raila explicitly called for supporters to boycott Safaricom. “We call for the boycott of Safaricom, Kenya Commercial Bank and Radio Africa Media…. have become the enemies of the people and are benefiting from the blood and tears of Kenyans,” he declared.
Those remarks created ripples. Safaricom retail agents and M-PESA merchants reported apprehension and operational disruptions, though the firm’s deeply embedded services meant that full withdrawal by consumers was impractical. The boycott failed to derail Safaricom’s revenue trajectory, but it punctured assumptions about corporate immunity and forced Safaricom to sharpen its public relations posture and data transparency.
Safaricom later became a case study in political reputational risk: a company that could not easily be withdrawn from daily life, yet one that could not afford to ignore its image.
KCB Group: Banking diplomacy under pressure
Raila’s attacks were not limited to telecoms. He also targeted Kenya Commercial Bank (KCB), alleging in 2023 that the institution was complicit in state efforts to suppress dissent, specifically, that it assisted in freezing or scrutinising accounts linked with opposition activity.
Although no credible independent probe substantiated those claims, the effect was real. Customers in opposition-leaning regions reported hesitancy in transacting; the bank faced a reputational burden to reassure depositors and stakeholders. KCB issued statements affirming its neutrality and adherence to banking regulations, and executed targeted communication campaigns to restore confidence. The episode left an enduring mark on how banks approach political risk in Kenya—no longer as remote observers, but as participants in the theatre of public trust.
Media houses: Battleground for narrative control
Perhaps no sector felt Odinga’s wrath as fiercely as the media. He repeatedly accused prominent news outlets of bias, of giving disproportionate voice to the ruling establishment, and of shaping narratives against the opposition. In 2023, he included Radio Africa’s Star Newspaper among the entities to be boycotted, branding them “facilitators of this brutal regime.”
At the same time, he emphasised media culpability: “The media is also not blameless here. The media is very much deeply involved,” he said in an interview, calling for introspection from journalists covering matters of governance and corruption.
Many media houses responded defensively. Some advertisers temporarily paused campaigns to avoid being caught in political crossfire. Others disciplined coverage or distanced themselves from overtly partisan stances. In one case, Odinga later retracted the boycott call against The Star, opting instead to file a formal complaint with the Media Council of Kenya over editorial bias.
The result was a more cautious media environment. Editors and publishers began rethinking their relationships with political actors, consultants, and advertisers — in a context where the cost of perceived alignment could be reputational and economic.
Political symbolism, popular mobilisation, and unintended consequences
These corporate confrontations were never purely about businesses. They were indirect ways to weaponise the terrain of public consumption and infrastructure in the service of political accountability. By naming firms publicly, Raila aimed to democratise the idea that big business should not act without scrutiny or consequence.
