The tragic death of Albert Ojwang, a teacher and vocal citizen blogger, continues to grip Kenya. As the public demands accountability, attention has shifted to the digital trail that led the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) to capture him in his home.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!With Safaricom and the Communication Authority of Kenya (CAK) both denying any involvement in sharing Albert’s location, the country is left asking:
“If not them, then who?”
📡 The Role of Digital Surveillance in Modern Policing
Digital tracking has become a key element of modern policing. Through mobile networks, triangulation, and real-time data, security agencies can locate individuals within minutes. But this power must be exercised within strict legal frameworks, and any misuse could infringe on citizens’ rights.
In Albert’s case, no warrant, order, or due process has been confirmed publicly. This leaves a chilling possibility: Was Albert unlawfully tracked before being tortured and killed?
📢 CAK Denies Involvement
On June 11, 2025, the Communication Authority of Kenya (CAK) issued a firm statement:
“The Authority has not, and does not, provide user location data to any party unless there is a court-sanctioned legal procedure in place. We categorically deny the allegations circulating online.”
This response followed public speculation that CAK or telecom regulators might have assisted the DCI in real-time tracking.
📞 Safaricom Also Distances Itself
Earlier, Safaricom PLC, Kenya’s largest mobile operator, also denied providing Albert’s location to security agents. In a public statement, the company said:
“We follow the law. Any data shared with agencies must be backed by a lawful warrant. No such request was processed regarding Mr. Ojwang.”
This dual denial leaves a glaring gap in the state’s account of Albert’s apprehension.
❓ So, Who Gave the DCI Albert’s Location?
This is the question on every Kenyan’s mind. With both CAK and Safaricom out, the DCI is under pressure to explain:
- How they pinpointed Albert’s exact location in Karura Forest between 9:35 PM and 1:39 AM.
- Whether external or rogue surveillance tools were used.
- If any part of the state’s tracking capacity is operating without oversight.
Digital rights organizations such as KICTANet and Article 19 Eastern Africa have called for an urgent forensic audit of mobile and surveillance data exchanges within government agencies.
🏛️ Senate Questions the Legality of the Surveillance
During a recent Senate session, members raised these very questions. Senators demanded clarity from Interior CS Kipchumba Murkomen, Inspector General Douglas Kanja, and DCI Director Mohamed Amin.
“The Kenyan public must be assured that their mobile data is not being weaponized without due process,” one senator declared.
They insisted that all digital surveillance involving Albert be laid bare, and any individuals found abusing their access to data be prosecuted.
⚖️ A Legal and Ethical Turning Point
Albert’s case could mark a pivotal moment in Kenya’s relationship with surveillance and digital rights. If state actors can access one’s location data without clear legal procedures—and later deny involvement—it opens a dangerous precedent.
What happened to Albert could happen to any outspoken citizen, journalist, or activist.
💡 Why This Matters to You
Digital privacy is not a privilege—it’s a right. The answers in Albert’s case could shape the future of digital freedom in Kenya. Citizens must push for:
- Transparency in surveillance mechanisms
- Stronger judicial oversight
- Public reporting of data requests and usage
- Legislative reforms to close loopholes
🧭 Final Thoughts
Albert Ojwang may have died, but the questions he leaves behind must be answered. If CAK didn’t share his location, and Safaricom didn’t either, who helped the DCI track him that night?
Until we know, justice remains incomplete.
