REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CONSTITUTIONAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS DIVISION
PETITION NO. E051 OF 2026 AS CONSOLIDATED WITH PETITION E836 OF 2025 AND PETITION E831 OF 2025
-BETWEEN-
TONY GACHOKA ………………………...1 st PETITIONER/APPLICANT
PROFESSOR FREDRICK
ONYANGO OGOLA………………………2 ND PETITIONER/APPLICANT
PAUL MAINA MUGO ……………………………………3 RD PETITIONER
SAMUEL KAHARA MACHARIA …….………………...4 TH PETITIONER
-VERSUS-
THE CABINET SECRETARY, NATIONAL
TREASURY & ECONOMIC PLANNING …………… 1 ST RESPONDENT
THE CABINET SECRETARY, INFORMATION,
COMMUNICATION & THE DIGITAL ECONOMY.. 2 ND RESPONDENT
THE COMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY
OF KENYA……………………………………………….3 RD RESPONDENT
THE COMPETITION AUTHORITY OF KENYA …...4 TH RESPONDENT
THE HONOURABLE ATTORNEY GENERAL …….. 5 TH RESPONDENT
SAFARICOM PLC ………………………………………6 TH RESPONDENT
VODACOM GROUP ……………………………………7 TH RESPONDENT
VODAFONE KENYA LIMITED…………………….....8 TH RESPONDENT
MINISTRY OF NATIONAL TREASURY &
ECONOMIC PLANNING ……………………………... 9 TH RESPONDENT
MINISTRY OF INFORMATION, COMMUNICATIONS & THE DIGITAL ECONOMY ………………………………... 10 TH RESPONDENT
THE PRIVATISATION COMMISSION ……………..11 TH RESPONDENT
VODAFONE GROUP PLC ……………………………12 TH RESPONDENT
RULING ON LEGAL REPRESENTATION
1. Before this Court for determination are three Applications filed by the 1 st and 2 nd Petitioners as the applicants. The first Application is a Notice of Motion dated 17 th April 2026 filed by the 1 st Petitioner and premised on Articles 22, 23, 73, 75 of the Constitution and all enabling provisions of the law.
2. The 1 st Applicant seeks the following ORDERS:
(1 Pending hearing and determination of this Petition this Honourable Court be pleased to issue an order restraining and/or prohibiting Mr. John M. Ohaga, SC, FCIArb and/or Triple OK Law LLP from acting, appearing, advising, or otherwise representing the Attorney General and/or any State organ in proceedings relating to the proposed or contested divestiture of shares in Safaricom PLC (or any related proceedings).
(2 The ruling of Justice Samwel Nyaberi Mohochi Mukira in Nakuru High Court Constitutional Petition No. EOOI of 2026 (Ruling delivered on 12 th January 2026) is a judgment in rem and is therefore binding on all persons and entities.
(3 An order that costs of this application be provided for.
(4 Such further and/or other orders as this Honourable Court may deem just and expedient.
3. The Application is premised on the grounds on the face of it and the annexed affidavit of the 1 st Petitioner/Applicant Tony Gachoka sworn on even date where he deposes that there exist potential conflicts of interest involving legal representation in these proceedings relating to the proposed divestiture of Safaricom PLC shares. He highlights critical issues pertaining to governance, conflict of interest, constitutional compliance and the integrity of legal proceedings implicating public resources and constitutional principles. The 1 st petitioner depones that the Attorney General has appointed external counsel to represent the State in this high-profile Safaricom divestiture litigation, reflecting the significant public interest and constitutional implications of the case.
4. According to the 1 st Petitioner, the law firm TripleOKLaw LLP, in which Mr. John M. Ohaga, SC, is the Managing Partner has historical involvement with Safaricom PLC or related commercial interests which past association raises a potential conflict of interest in Mr. Ohaga SC’s current role of representing the Attorney General in the present Petition.
5. The 1 st petitioner contends that Mr. John M. Ohaga, SC is publicly known to hold governance roles, including leadership positions in the M-Pesa Foundation governance structure, which is linked to Safaricom and that this dual role raises concerns about overlapping fiduciary and advisory duties that may undermine the independence and impartiality expected in the Attorney General’s legal representation.
6. The 1 st petitioner/ Applicant asserts in deposition that on 12 th January 2026, the High Court in Nakuru in Nakuru High Court Petition No. EOOI of 2026 issued a temporary order restricting all public entities including national and county governments from engaging external lawyers or private law firms, thereby impacting the Attorney General’s choice of representation. That the aforesaid order was appealed by both the Law Society of Kenya and the Attorney General, but the Court of Appeal declined to stay the order, requiring a full hearing.
7. The 1 st Petitioner addresses the importance of complying with constitutional and statutory provisions in his affidavit specifically under Article 10 on national values and principles of governance, emphasising the rule of law, transparency and accountability; Article 157(9) on the independence of the Attorney General which is subject only to the Constitution, the Advocates Act, and professional ethics rules, particularly regarding conflict of interest; Chapter Six of the Constitution on standards of leadership and integrity expected of public officers; and the Advocates Act and Professional Ethics which is the law governing advocates and which requires undivided loyalty to clients, prohibits conflict of interest, either actual or perceived, in legal practice.
8. It is contended that the litigation concerning the divestiture of Safaricom shares is deemed a matter of high public importance, involving public resources and constitutional governance; and that the risk of conflicted counsel acting threatens the integrity of the legal proceedings relating to the matter; public confidence and trust in the justice system; and constitutional adherence and proper regulatory oversight of the financial system.
9. The 2 nd Application , is a Notice of Motion by the 1 st Petitioner also dated 17 th April 2026 and premised under Articles 22, 23, 73, 75 of the Constitution and all other enabling provisions of the law seeking the following ORDERS: -
(1 A declaration be issued that the participation of Andrew Mukite Musangi, Chairman of the Board of the Central Bank of Kenya, as counsel for Safaricom PLC constitutes a conflict of interest in violation of Articles 10, 73, and 75 of the Constitution.
(2 An order be issued disqualifying and/or barring the said Andrew Mukite Musangi from acting as counsel for Safaricom PLC in these proceedings or any related matter concerning the disputed transaction.
(3 A declaration be issued that the issues arising in this matter raise constitutional questions of public importance relating to integrity in public office and regulatory independence.
(4 Such further or other orders be granted as this Honourable Court may deem just to safeguard constitutional values, public confidence, and the integrity of public institutions.
(5 Costs of this application be provided for.
10. The Application is also supported by the sworn affidavit of the 1 st Petitioner/Applicant TONY GACHOKA , dated evenly with the Application and is founded on the grounds that the Chairman of the Central Bank of Kenya occupies a public office within a key financial regulator exercising oversight over Safaricom PLC’s mobile financial services and acting as counsel for a regulated entity creates both actual and apparent conflict of interest, contrary to Article 75(1) of the Constitution and the Conflict of Interest Act, 2025 .
11. It is deposed that a reasonable and fair-minded observer would conclude that there exists a real likelihood of bias, contrary to established legal principles and that such dual role undermines independence of regulatory institutions, public confidence in governance and the integrity of public office.
12. It is deposed in contention that the dispute before the Court implicates public law and constitutional issues, including financial system stability and regulatory oversight, and is not purely commercial. That accordingly, failure by the Court to intervene and halt the legal representation by Mr. Musangi would sanction conduct inconsistent with constitutional standards of leadership and integrity under Chapter Six and it is in the interest of justice that the orders sought be granted.
13. The 3 rd Application is a Notice of Motion dated 25 th April 2026 premised on Articles 22, 23, 159 and 258 of the Constitution of Kenya, Rule 23 of the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules, 2013, and all other enabling provisions of the law, filed by the 2 nd Petitioner herein Prof. Fredrick Onyango Ogola and supported by his sworn Affidavit dated 27 th April 2026 .
14. The Applicant seeks the following ORDERS: -
(1 SPENT
(2 THAT pending the hearing and determination of this Application and the Petition herein, this Honourable Court be pleased to issue an order barring, disqualifying, and/or restraining Msangi, Advocate, from appearing, acting, or representing the 6 th Respondent, Safaricom PLC, in these proceedings.
(3 THAT this Honourable Court be pleased to declare that the participation of a State Officer as counsel for a private entity in proceedings involving public interest and Government shareholding constitutes a conflict of interest and is in contravention of Chapter Six of the Constitution.
(4 THAT this Honourable Court be pleased to direct that the issue of conflict of interest and breach of constitutional integrity arising from the conduct of the said State Officer be determined contemporaneously with the Application for conservatory orders.
(5 THAT this Honourable Court be pleased to refer the conduct of the said State Officer to the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission and the Law Society of Kenya for investigation and appropriate action.
(6 THAT costs of this Application be provided for.
(7 THAT such further or other orders be made as this Honourable Court shall deem just and expedient in the circumstances.
15. This Application is premised on several grounds, namely: that, the Petition before the Court concerns the divesture of Government’s shareholding in Safaricom PLC a major entity having significant national and economic importance and it raises serious constitutional and ethical concerns about the involvement of a State Officer acting simultaneously in a public and private capacity. That presently, Advocate Musangi represents Safaricom PLC in the case while still being a State Officer, Chairperson of the Central Bank of Kenya’s Board.
16. Several statutory and constitutional provisions are cited in support, in particular, Article 260 of the Constitution which defines who a state officer is; Chapter Six on Leadership and Integrity which mandates avoidance of conflict of interest and mandates integrity; Articles 73 & 75 which prescribe leadership responsibilities and State Officer conduct and the Public Officer Ethics Act and the Leadership and Integrity Act.
17. It is deposed that there exist real, apparent and potential conflicts from Advocate Musangi acting in a private capacity in a matter involving government financial interests because a State Officer is prohibited from engaging in activities that lead to divided loyalty or compromise their integrity.
18. It is contended that there is a heightened duty to uphold public trust and administration of justice by the said advocate and that he is expected to maintain integrity and avoid situations leading to conflict with public duties.
19. The Applicant asserts that the continued participation of the Advocate in the proceedings poses legal and ethical violations, undermining public confidence and judicial integrity. He decries that the issues raised are of intrinsic relevance to the substratum of the Petition and the conservatory orders sought and requires urgent judicial scrutiny to uphold the principles outlined in the Constitution and related statutes. Further it is contended that the present judicial proceedings are at a risk of violating constitutional rule of law and good governance principles and may lack integrity due to the risk of constitutional prejudice and loss of legal and public confidence.
Responses
20. The 5 th Respondent, the Honourable Attorney General filed a Further Replying Affidavit sworn by the Attorney General, Hon. Dorcas Agik Oduor dated 22 nd May 2026 in response to the 1 st Application dated 17 th April 2026 that seeks the disqualification of Mr. John Ohaga SC as legal counsel representing the 5 th Respondent. The said response only addresses the issue of the authority to instruct counsel.
21. It is averred that, having considered the orders issued on 12 th January 2026 and the subsequent orders of 30 th January 2026 in Nakuru High Court Constitutional Petition No. E001 of 2026 , the Attorney General is satisfied that its office is not barred from instructing counsel in the present matter and that the said office bears the lawful authority to instruct Mr. Ohaga SC, pursuant to its constitutional and statutory mandate, to appear and lead the Attorney General’s case in the present proceedings.
22. It is asserted that Mr. Ohaga SC appears in the conduct of the Petition and in opposition to the Application dated 17 th April 2026 with the Attorney General’s full knowledge, approval and express authority.
23. In response to the 2 nd Application filed by the 1 st Petitioner dated 17 th April 2026 which seeks the removal/barring of Andrew Mukite Musangi as legal counsel for the 6 th Respondent- Safaricom PLC - on the grounds that it constitutes a conflict of interest (that he is also the non-executive Chairman of the Board of Directors for the Central Bank of Kenya-CBK), the 6 th Respondent through the firm of Messrs Mukite Musangi & Company Advocates filed a Replying Affidavit sworn by Andrew Mukite Musangi dated 23 rd April 2026 .
24. The 6 th Respondent opposes the Application on several grounds inter alia that the said Andrew Mukite Musangi is an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya practicing in Nairobi and Nakuru holding the position of senior partner at Mukite Musangi & Company Advocates and is also a non-executive Chairman of the Board of Directors, CBK, appointed for a four-year term starting 29 th September 2023 as per Section 11 of the Central Bank of Kenya Act, Cap 491 .
25. They contend that the Application is misconceived, legally untenable and an abuse of court process because it confuses three key legal concepts being conflict of interest, regulatory authority and constitutional thresholds for disqualification of counsel.
26. It is averred that the disqualification of counsel is an exceptional remedy justified only where either, there is a real, demonstrable conflict, not speculative, or that there is a material risk of misuse of confidential information, or the advocate’s continued participation would prejudice the administration of justice. That accordingly, mere office or professional affiliation does not constitute a conflict of interest.
27. The 6 th Respondent contends in deposition that Section 10 of the Central Bank of Kenya Act, Cap 491 outlines the CBK Board’s responsibilities as limited to policy, oversight and governance. That the Board does not undertake operational regulation since regulatory actions are executive functions. As such, that the Chairperson and the Board do not exercise regulatory decision-making over the 6 th Respondent while the present petition relates to a purely commercial shareholder-to-shareholder transaction, with no overlap of confidential information between CBK responsibilities and the case.
28. It is pleaded that the Mr. Andrew Musangi advocate has no personal, financial, or proprietary interest in Safaricom PLC the 6 th Respondent and that his engagement as a non-executive Chairman of CBK does not restrict legal practice or acting on behalf of any clients. That the firm of Mukite Musangi & Company Advocates was appointed by the 6 th Respondent as a public limited company to represent them so that acting as counsel does not create or constitute a conflict with public duties or national governance principles.
29. It is stated that there is no violation of Articles 10, 73, or 75 of the Constitution and that the present Application improperly seeks to transform Chapter Six into a tool for litigation strategy and a mechanism to interfere with a party’s fundamental constitutional right to legal representation of choice.
30. It is asserted that the 6 th Respondent has an unfettered constitutional right to legal representation by counsel of its choice, that disqualification by the Court interferes with that right and if allowed would constitute a draconian measure by a court of law, which determination requires a very high threshold that has not been met.
31. The sixth respondent decries the fact that the Applicants have not demonstrated that Advocate Musangi’s conduct in this matter will lead to a miscarriage of justice or any risk of prejudice as against any party.
32. It is further contended that the generalised and hypothetical assumptions by the 1 st and 2 nd Petitioners do not meet any evidentiary standards of proof and that the Application is premised entirely on speculation, misplaced apprehension and conjecture.
33. It is the 6 th respondent’s contention that the Petitioners have expressed various vague and misconceived concerns without any degree of specificity and that the allegations of potential conflict of interest and perceptions of bias are based on a misapprehension of facts or a deliberate scheme to divert the Court’s attention and time from the germane issues in the Petition.
34. The 6 th respondent firmly asserts that the allegation that the said advocate’s role undermines independence of regulatory institutions is incorrect because the independence of CBK is institutional, not personal; that the CBK Board does not adjudicate shareholder divestiture disputes such as this and that there is no pending or contemplated CBK regulatory action relating to this transaction, rendering the argument about regulatory independence abstract, unsupported and legally irrelevant.
35. In response to the 3 rd Application filed by the 2 nd Petitioner, the 6 th Respondent filed Grounds of Opposition dated 12 th May 2026 raising several grounds which can be summarized as follows: that the Motion is fundamentally flawed as it is factually misconceived, legally incompetent, speculative and an abuse of court process. It is urged that the Motion lacks any factual or legal foundation for disqualifying counsel for the 6 th Respondent.
36. The 6 th Respondent contends that the Applicant misapprehends Article 260 of the Constitution by wrongly categorizing Mr. Andrew Mukite Musangi as a State Officer, whereas his position is not among those expressly listed under Article 260 , making Chapter Six provisions inapplicable.
37. It is further contended by the 6 th respondent that the Applicant has not demonstrated any actual or apparent conflict of interest, bias or breach of Chapter Six and that the claim fails to meet the standards under Section 8 of the Conflict-of-Interest Act, 2025 and the Code of Standards of Professional Practice and Ethical Conduct, 2016 .
38. Additionally, it is urged that the Application seeks to unjustifiably interfere with the 6 th Respondent’s constitutional right to legal representation and choice of counsel, without demonstrating any prejudice that would result from Mr. Musangi’s continued representation of the 6 th respondent.
39. It is also the 6 th respondent’s position that disqualification of counsel is an exceptional remedy reserved for clear cases involving real prejudice, conflict of interest, breach of confidentiality or threat to justice, none of which have been proven in the present case. That instead, the Motion is based on conjecture and unsupported allegations, seemingly intended to embarrass and intimidate counsel, disrupt proceedings and delay fair determination of the Petition.
40. It is asserted that the Application fails to disclose any reasonable cause of action against Mr. Musangi, that it is bad in law and should be dismissed with costs to the 6 th Respondent.
41. The three Applications were canvassed by way of written submissions which are now on record and summarised below.
The 1 st Petitioner’s Submissions
42. Counsel for the 1 st Petitioner filed submissions dated 17 th April 2026 in respect of the Application for the disqualification of Mr. John Ohaga SC as lead legal counsel instructed by the Attorney General. The following issues for determination were framed:
i. Whether the participation of the said counsel creates a real, reasonable, or apparent conflict of interest;
ii. Whether procurement and appointment of external counsel by State organs must comply with constitutional and statutory thresholds;
iii. Whether the impugned appointment violates Articles 10, 73, 75 and 157(9) of the Constitution; and
iv. Whether this Court should intervene in the public interest.
43. It is submitted that the legal standard of conflict of interest extends beyond demonstrating actual bias to include real, reasonable, or apparent conflict or divided loyalties, grounded in constitutional values of integrity, transparency and accountability under Articles 10, 73, 75 of the Constitution .
44. Counsel submitted that Mr. John M. Ohaga, SC, holds a governance role as Chairman of the M-Pesa Foundation, which is intricately linked to Safaricom PLC on the one hand; and that Safaricom is a strategic national asset in telecommunications and financial services with economic and public interest implications on the other hand, whose sale of 15% of its stake to Vodacom Group, a foreign investor, potentially affects corporate control and economic sovereignty.
45. It is urged that Mr. Ohaga’s dual role poses a credible risk of divided loyalty, compromising fiduciary duties and public trust. Counsel cites the cases of Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance v Attorney General & 2 Others where it was held that conflict includes appearance and likelihood, not just actual bias; Mumo Matemu (Interested Party) [2012] eKLR; [2012] KEHC 2480 (KLR) (High Court at Nairobi, Petition No. 229 of 2012, Judgment delivered on 20 September 2012) and R v Neil, [2002] 3 S.C.R. 631, 2002 SCC 70, Supreme Court of Canada, (decided 1 November 2002) where the courts held that strict duty of loyalty requires avoiding conflicts unless full disclosure and consent are obtained.
46. The case of Prince Jefri Bolkiah v KPMG (A Firm) [1999] 2 AC 222 (House of Lords, United Kingdom) is cited, where the House of Lords is said to have held that courts should focus on the risk of conflict itself, regardless of evidence of misuse of confidential information alongside the fiduciary principle from Ex parte James (1803) which reinforces that one cannot simultaneously act where personal interests conflict with duties.
47. On the second issue, it is submitted that the procurement of external legal services by public entities must comply strictly with constitutional principles of fairness, transparency, accountability, equity and good governance under Article 10 of the Constitution and statutory requirements including compliance with the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act, 2015 . That, at the same time, that public interest and Constitutional Supremacy demand that all state organs and actions must operate within the limits of the Constitution, underscoring the rule of law and public confidence in governance.
48. The case of Republic v Public Procurement Administrative Review Board & 2 Others ex parte Noble Gases International Limited [2015] eKLR; [2015] KEHC (Judicial Review Case No. 413 of 2014, by the High Court at Nairobi, is cited in support where it is said to have been held that procurement is a constitutional process requiring adherence to set principles. Counsel also cites the cases of Republic v Attorney General & Others ex parte Transcend Media Group [2015] eKLR; [2015] KEHC (Judicial Review Application No. 29 of 2015 where the court is said to have stated that state organs are subject to judicial review over procurement; Pelt Security Services Limited v Public Procurement Administrative Review Board & Another [2018] eKLR; [2018] KEHC (High Court at Nairobi, Judicial Review Application No. 123 of 2018 ) for the proposition that procurement processes must be transparent, competitive and compliant with the law; and the Supreme Court’s decision in Speaker of the Senate & Another v Attorney General & 4 Others [20131 eKLR; [20131 KESC 6 (KLR) (Supreme Court of Kenya, Advisory Opinion No. 2 of 2013, delivered on 11 December 2013 ) where the court is said to have held that no authority is above the Constitution and that contraventions are invalid.
49. Counsel supports the third issue with submissions that the appointment of TripleOKLaw LLP and Mr. Ohaga as external counsel must be justified under the above principles, given that the transaction involves a strategic transfer of national assets to foreign investors, affecting public finance and sovereignty. He cited an interim order by the Nakuru High Court in Petition No. E001 of 2026 which restrained public entities from engaging external counsel pending determination and which order the Court of Appeal is said to have refused to stay in Civil Application No. E014 of 2026 , thereby reinforcing the necessity of strict compliance.
50. It is submitted that the order in Nakuru High Court prohibited public entities from engaging external legal counsel in matters relating to the Safaricom share sale pending substantive litigation and emphasised the need for accountability, prudence in the use of public funds and transparency under Article 10 of the Constitution . The Supreme Court decision in Gatirau Peter Munya v Dickson Mtvenda Kithinji & Others (2014) eKLR is also cited in which the apex court is said to have affirmed the binding nature of conservatory orders until they are set aside , noting their public law character. Counsel urges that the Attorney General and the Law Society of Kenya failed to secure a stay of the interim order from the Court of Appeal, meaning the order remains binding.
51. Further submission is that failure to comply with court orders is inimical to the rule of law as was held in Teachers Service Commission v Kenya National Union of Teachers & 2 Others [2013] eKLR; [2013] RECA (Civil Appeal No. 196 of 2013. That therefore, Mr. Ohaga’s continued representation of the Attorney General is prima facie unlawful and undermines judicial authority and public confidence.
The 2 nd Petitioner’s Submissions
52. The 2 nd Petitioner’s submissions are dated 25 th April 2026 . He submits on four main issues as follows:
i. Whether a State Officer is permitted to act as counsel for a private entity in proceedings involving public interest and Government financial stake;
ii. Whether such representation gives rise to a real, apparent, or potential conflict of interest;
iii. Whether the threshold for disqualification of counsel has been met; and
iv. Whether this Honourable Court should grant the reliefs sought .
53. It is submitted that the Application is grounded in multiple constitutional Articles, including but not limited to Article 10 on integrity, transparency, accountability as national values; Article 73 (1) (a) on respect of public office as a public trust; Article 73 (2) (b); Article 75(1); Article 201; Article 227 and Article 232 of the Constitution together with the principles in Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance v Attorney General & 2 Others [2012] eKLR, where the Court is said to have held that Chapter Six sets enforceable constitutional standards, not mere aspirations.
54. It is submitted that these provisions collectively establish that State Officers hold public trust and are required to avoid conflicts between personal and public interests. Sections 16 & 26 of Leadership and Integrity Act, 2012; Sections 12 & 13 of Public Officers Ethics Act; Advocates (Practice) Rules together with the case of Mumo Matemu v Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance & 5 Others [2013] eKLR are all cited to anchor the arguments on conflict of interest.
55. On the second issue, it is submitted that the law recognises three types of conflict being Actual Conflict which is direct conflict between duties and interests and a ground for mandatory disqualification; Potential Conflict which entails possible future conflict and which is sufficient for precautionary action; and Apparent Conflict which is perception or appearance of conflict and which latter requires that courts intervene to maintain public trust. That accordingly, apparent conflict alone suffices to disqualify counsel where the public interest is at stake as was held in the cases of Republic v IEBC ex parte Coalition for Reform and Democracy (CORD) [2017] eKLR and Kenya Pipeline Company Ltd v Glencore Energy (UK) Ltd [2015] eKLR .
56. Prof. Ogola argues that the Advocate, Mr. Andrew Mukite Musangi is also the Chairperson of the Central Bank of Kenya Board, qualifying as a State Officer under Article 260 of the Constitution and that such positions create heightened fiduciary and ethical responsibilities, requiring avoidance of conflicts. That therefore, representing a private corporate entity (Safaricom PLC) in matters involving Government shareholding leads to divided loyalty, risking compromised independence, potential access to privileged information pertaining to Government financial affairs and erosion of public confidence in institutional neutrality.
57. The 2 nd Petitioner asserts that the cited judicial authorities reinforce that both actual and perceived conflicts of interest are grounds for inte
[...truncated]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CONSTITUTIONAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS DIVISION
PETITION NO. E051 OF 2026 AS CONSOLIDATED WITH PETITION E836 OF 2025 AND PETITION E831 OF 2025
-BETWEEN-
TONY GACHOKA ………………………...1 st PETITIONER/APPLICANT
PROFESSOR FREDRICK
ONYANGO OGOLA………………………2 ND PETITIONER/APPLICANT
PAUL MAINA MUGO ……………………………………3 RD PETITIONER
SAMUEL KAHARA MACHARIA …….………………...4 TH PETITIONER
-VERSUS-
THE CABINET SECRETARY, NATIONAL
TREASURY & ECONOMIC PLANNING …………… 1 ST RESPONDENT
THE CABINET SECRETARY, INFORMATION,
COMMUNICATION & THE DIGITAL ECONOMY.. 2 ND RESPONDENT
THE COMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY
OF KENYA……………………………………………….3 RD RESPONDENT
THE COMPETITION AUTHORITY OF KENYA …...4 TH RESPONDENT
THE HONOURABLE ATTORNEY GENERAL …….. 5 TH RESPONDENT
SAFARICOM PLC ………………………………………6 TH RESPONDENT
VODACOM GROUP ……………………………………7 TH RESPONDENT
VODAFONE KENYA LIMITED…………………….....8 TH RESPONDENT
MINISTRY OF NATIONAL TREASURY &
ECONOMIC PLANNING ……………………………... 9 TH RESPONDENT
MINISTRY OF INFORMATION, COMMUNICATIONS & THE DIGITAL ECONOMY ………………………………... 10 TH RESPONDENT
THE PRIVATISATION COMMISSION ……………..11 TH RESPONDENT
VODAFONE GROUP PLC ……………………………12 TH RESPONDENT
RULING ON LEGAL REPRESENTATION
1. Before this Court for determination are three Applications filed by the 1 st and 2 nd Petitioners as the applicants. The first Application is a Notice of Motion dated 17 th April 2026 filed by the 1 st Petitioner and premised on Articles 22, 23, 73, 75 of the Constitution and all enabling provisions of the law.
2. The 1 st Applicant seeks the following ORDERS:
(1 Pending hearing and determination of this Petition this Honourable Court be pleased to issue an order restraining and/or prohibiting Mr. John M. Ohaga, SC, FCIArb and/or Triple OK Law LLP from acting, appearing, advising, or otherwise representing the Attorney General and/or any State organ in proceedings relating to the proposed or contested divestiture of shares in Safaricom PLC (or any related proceedings).
(2 The ruling of Justice Samwel Nyaberi Mohochi Mukira in Nakuru High Court Constitutional Petition No. EOOI of 2026 (Ruling delivered on 12 th January 2026) is a judgment in rem and is therefore binding on all persons and entities.
(3 An order that costs of this application be provided for.
(4 Such further and/or other orders as this Honourable Court may deem just and expedient.
3. The Application is premised on the grounds on the face of it and the annexed affidavit of the 1 st Petitioner/Applicant Tony Gachoka sworn on even date where he deposes that there exist potential conflicts of interest involving legal representation in these proceedings relating to the proposed divestiture of Safaricom PLC shares. He highlights critical issues pertaining to governance, conflict of interest, constitutional compliance and the integrity of legal proceedings implicating public resources and constitutional principles. The 1 st petitioner depones that the Attorney General has appointed external counsel to represent the State in this high-profile Safaricom divestiture litigation, reflecting the significant public interest and constitutional implications of the case.
4. According to the 1 st Petitioner, the law firm TripleOKLaw LLP, in which Mr. John M. Ohaga, SC, is the Managing Partner has historical involvement with Safaricom PLC or related commercial interests which past association raises a potential conflict of interest in Mr. Ohaga SC’s current role of representing the Attorney General in the present Petition.
5. The 1 st petitioner contends that Mr. John M. Ohaga, SC is publicly known to hold governance roles, including leadership positions in the M-Pesa Foundation governance structure, which is linked to Safaricom and that this dual role raises concerns about overlapping fiduciary and advisory duties that may undermine the independence and impartiality expected in the Attorney General’s legal representation.
6. The 1 st petitioner/ Applicant asserts in deposition that on 12 th January 2026, the High Court in Nakuru in Nakuru High Court Petition No. EOOI of 2026 issued a temporary order restricting all public entities including national and county governments from engaging external lawyers or private law firms, thereby impacting the Attorney General’s choice of representation. That the aforesaid order was appealed by both the Law Society of Kenya and the Attorney General, but the Court of Appeal declined to stay the order, requiring a full hearing.
7. The 1 st Petitioner addresses the importance of complying with constitutional and statutory provisions in his affidavit specifically under Article 10 on national values and principles of governance, emphasising the rule of law, transparency and accountability; Article 157(9) on the independence of the Attorney General which is subject only to the Constitution, the Advocates Act, and professional ethics rules, particularly regarding conflict of interest; Chapter Six of the Constitution on standards of leadership and integrity expected of public officers; and the Advocates Act and Professional Ethics which is the law governing advocates and which requires undivided loyalty to clients, prohibits conflict of interest, either actual or perceived, in legal practice.
8. It is contended that the litigation concerning the divestiture of Safaricom shares is deemed a matter of high public importance, involving public resources and constitutional governance; and that the risk of conflicted counsel acting threatens the integrity of the legal proceedings relating to the matter; public confidence and trust in the justice system; and constitutional adherence and proper regulatory oversight of the financial system.
9. The 2 nd Application , is a Notice of Motion by the 1 st Petitioner also dated 17 th April 2026 and premised under Articles 22, 23, 73, 75 of the Constitution and all other enabling provisions of the law seeking the following ORDERS: -
(1 A declaration be issued that the participation of Andrew Mukite Musangi, Chairman of the Board of the Central Bank of Kenya, as counsel for Safaricom PLC constitutes a conflict of interest in violation of Articles 10, 73, and 75 of the Constitution.
(2 An order be issued disqualifying and/or barring the said Andrew Mukite Musangi from acting as counsel for Safaricom PLC in these proceedings or any related matter concerning the disputed transaction.
(3 A declaration be issued that the issues arising in this matter raise constitutional questions of public importance relating to integrity in public office and regulatory independence.
(4 Such further or other orders be granted as this Honourable Court may deem just to safeguard constitutional values, public confidence, and the integrity of public institutions.
(5 Costs of this application be provided for.
10. The Application is also supported by the sworn affidavit of the 1 st Petitioner/Applicant TONY GACHOKA , dated evenly with the Application and is founded on the grounds that the Chairman of the Central Bank of Kenya occupies a public office within a key financial regulator exercising oversight over Safaricom PLC’s mobile financial services and acting as counsel for a regulated entity creates both actual and apparent conflict of interest, contrary to Article 75(1) of the Constitution and the Conflict of Interest Act, 2025 .
11. It is deposed that a reasonable and fair-minded observer would conclude that there exists a real likelihood of bias, contrary to established legal principles and that such dual role undermines independence of regulatory institutions, public confidence in governance and the integrity of public office.
12. It is deposed in contention that the dispute before the Court implicates public law and constitutional issues, including financial system stability and regulatory oversight, and is not purely commercial. That accordingly, failure by the Court to intervene and halt the legal representation by Mr. Musangi would sanction conduct inconsistent with constitutional standards of leadership and integrity under Chapter Six and it is in the interest of justice that the orders sought be granted.
13. The 3 rd Application is a Notice of Motion dated 25 th April 2026 premised on Articles 22, 23, 159 and 258 of the Constitution of Kenya, Rule 23 of the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules, 2013, and all other enabling provisions of the law, filed by the 2 nd Petitioner herein Prof. Fredrick Onyango Ogola and supported by his sworn Affidavit dated 27 th April 2026 .
14. The Applicant seeks the following ORDERS: -
(1 SPENT
(2 THAT pending the hearing and determination of this Application and the Petition herein, this Honourable Court be pleased to issue an order barring, disqualifying, and/or restraining Msangi, Advocate, from appearing, acting, or representing the 6 th Respondent, Safaricom PLC, in these proceedings.
(3 THAT this Honourable Court be pleased to declare that the participation of a State Officer as counsel for a private entity in proceedings involving public interest and Government shareholding constitutes a conflict of interest and is in contravention of Chapter Six of the Constitution.
(4 THAT this Honourable Court be pleased to direct that the issue of conflict of interest and breach of constitutional integrity arising from the conduct of the said State Officer be determined contemporaneously with the Application for conservatory orders.
(5 THAT this Honourable Court be pleased to refer the conduct of the said State Officer to the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission and the Law Society of Kenya for investigation and appropriate action.
(6 THAT costs of this Application be provided for.
(7 THAT such further or other orders be made as this Honourable Court shall deem just and expedient in the circumstances.
15. This Application is premised on several grounds, namely: that, the Petition before the Court concerns the divesture of Government’s shareholding in Safaricom PLC a major entity having significant national and economic importance and it raises serious constitutional and ethical concerns about the involvement of a State Officer acting simultaneously in a public and private capacity. That presently, Advocate Musangi represents Safaricom PLC in the case while still being a State Officer, Chairperson of the Central Bank of Kenya’s Board.
16. Several statutory and constitutional provisions are cited in support, in particular, Article 260 of the Constitution which defines who a state officer is; Chapter Six on Leadership and Integrity which mandates avoidance of conflict of interest and mandates integrity; Articles 73 & 75 which prescribe leadership responsibilities and State Officer conduct and the Public Officer Ethics Act and the Leadership and Integrity Act.
17. It is deposed that there exist real, apparent and potential conflicts from Advocate Musangi acting in a private capacity in a matter involving government financial interests because a State Officer is prohibited from engaging in activities that lead to divided loyalty or compromise their integrity.
18. It is contended that there is a heightened duty to uphold public trust and administration of justice by the said advocate and that he is expected to maintain integrity and avoid situations leading to conflict with public duties.
19. The Applicant asserts that the continued participation of the Advocate in the proceedings poses legal and ethical violations, undermining public confidence and judicial integrity. He decries that the issues raised are of intrinsic relevance to the substratum of the Petition and the conservatory orders sought and requires urgent judicial scrutiny to uphold the principles outlined in the Constitution and related statutes. Further it is contended that the present judicial proceedings are at a risk of violating constitutional rule of law and good governance principles and may lack integrity due to the risk of constitutional prejudice and loss of legal and public confidence.
Responses
20. The 5 th Respondent, the Honourable Attorney General filed a Further Replying Affidavit sworn by the Attorney General, Hon. Dorcas Agik Oduor dated 22 nd May 2026 in response to the 1 st Application dated 17 th April 2026 that seeks the disqualification of Mr. John Ohaga SC as legal counsel representing the 5 th Respondent. The said response only addresses the issue of the authority to instruct counsel.
21. It is averred that, having considered the orders issued on 12 th January 2026 and the subsequent orders of 30 th January 2026 in Nakuru High Court Constitutional Petition No. E001 of 2026 , the Attorney General is satisfied that its office is not barred from instructing counsel in the present matter and that the said office bears the lawful authority to instruct Mr. Ohaga SC, pursuant to its constitutional and statutory mandate, to appear and lead the Attorney General’s case in the present proceedings.
22. It is asserted that Mr. Ohaga SC appears in the conduct of the Petition and in opposition to the Application dated 17 th April 2026 with the Attorney General’s full knowledge, approval and express authority.
23. In response to the 2 nd Application filed by the 1 st Petitioner dated 17 th April 2026 which seeks the removal/barring of Andrew Mukite Musangi as legal counsel for the 6 th Respondent- Safaricom PLC - on the grounds that it constitutes a conflict of interest (that he is also the non-executive Chairman of the Board of Directors for the Central Bank of Kenya-CBK), the 6 th Respondent through the firm of Messrs Mukite Musangi & Company Advocates filed a Replying Affidavit sworn by Andrew Mukite Musangi dated 23 rd April 2026 .
24. The 6 th Respondent opposes the Application on several grounds inter alia that the said Andrew Mukite Musangi is an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya practicing in Nairobi and Nakuru holding the position of senior partner at Mukite Musangi & Company Advocates and is also a non-executive Chairman of the Board of Directors, CBK, appointed for a four-year term starting 29 th September 2023 as per Section 11 of the Central Bank of Kenya Act, Cap 491 .
25. They contend that the Application is misconceived, legally untenable and an abuse of court process because it confuses three key legal concepts being conflict of interest, regulatory authority and constitutional thresholds for disqualification of counsel.
26. It is averred that the disqualification of counsel is an exceptional remedy justified only where either, there is a real, demonstrable conflict, not speculative, or that there is a material risk of misuse of confidential information, or the advocate’s continued participation would prejudice the administration of justice. That accordingly, mere office or professional affiliation does not constitute a conflict of interest.
27. The 6 th Respondent contends in deposition that Section 10 of the Central Bank of Kenya Act, Cap 491 outlines the CBK Board’s responsibilities as limited to policy, oversight and governance. That the Board does not undertake operational regulation since regulatory actions are executive functions. As such, that the Chairperson and the Board do not exercise regulatory decision-making over the 6 th Respondent while the present petition relates to a purely commercial shareholder-to-shareholder transaction, with no overlap of confidential information between CBK responsibilities and the case.
28. It is pleaded that the Mr. Andrew Musangi advocate has no personal, financial, or proprietary interest in Safaricom PLC the 6 th Respondent and that his engagement as a non-executive Chairman of CBK does not restrict legal practice or acting on behalf of any clients. That the firm of Mukite Musangi & Company Advocates was appointed by the 6 th Respondent as a public limited company to represent them so that acting as counsel does not create or constitute a conflict with public duties or national governance principles.
29. It is stated that there is no violation of Articles 10, 73, or 75 of the Constitution and that the present Application improperly seeks to transform Chapter Six into a tool for litigation strategy and a mechanism to interfere with a party’s fundamental constitutional right to legal representation of choice.
30. It is asserted that the 6 th Respondent has an unfettered constitutional right to legal representation by counsel of its choice, that disqualification by the Court interferes with that right and if allowed would constitute a draconian measure by a court of law, which determination requires a very high threshold that has not been met.
31. The sixth respondent decries the fact that the Applicants have not demonstrated that Advocate Musangi’s conduct in this matter will lead to a miscarriage of justice or any risk of prejudice as against any party.
32. It is further contended that the generalised and hypothetical assumptions by the 1 st and 2 nd Petitioners do not meet any evidentiary standards of proof and that the Application is premised entirely on speculation, misplaced apprehension and conjecture.
33. It is the 6 th respondent’s contention that the Petitioners have expressed various vague and misconceived concerns without any degree of specificity and that the allegations of potential conflict of interest and perceptions of bias are based on a misapprehension of facts or a deliberate scheme to divert the Court’s attention and time from the germane issues in the Petition.
34. The 6 th respondent firmly asserts that the allegation that the said advocate’s role undermines independence of regulatory institutions is incorrect because the independence of CBK is institutional, not personal; that the CBK Board does not adjudicate shareholder divestiture disputes such as this and that there is no pending or contemplated CBK regulatory action relating to this transaction, rendering the argument about regulatory independence abstract, unsupported and legally irrelevant.
35. In response to the 3 rd Application filed by the 2 nd Petitioner, the 6 th Respondent filed Grounds of Opposition dated 12 th May 2026 raising several grounds which can be summarized as follows: that the Motion is fundamentally flawed as it is factually misconceived, legally incompetent, speculative and an abuse of court process. It is urged that the Motion lacks any factual or legal foundation for disqualifying counsel for the 6 th Respondent.
36. The 6 th Respondent contends that the Applicant misapprehends Article 260 of the Constitution by wrongly categorizing Mr. Andrew Mukite Musangi as a State Officer, whereas his position is not among those expressly listed under Article 260 , making Chapter Six provisions inapplicable.
37. It is further contended by the 6 th respondent that the Applicant has not demonstrated any actual or apparent conflict of interest, bias or breach of Chapter Six and that the claim fails to meet the standards under Section 8 of the Conflict-of-Interest Act, 2025 and the Code of Standards of Professional Practice and Ethical Conduct, 2016 .
38. Additionally, it is urged that the Application seeks to unjustifiably interfere with the 6 th Respondent’s constitutional right to legal representation and choice of counsel, without demonstrating any prejudice that would result from Mr. Musangi’s continued representation of the 6 th respondent.
39. It is also the 6 th respondent’s position that disqualification of counsel is an exceptional remedy reserved for clear cases involving real prejudice, conflict of interest, breach of confidentiality or threat to justice, none of which have been proven in the present case. That instead, the Motion is based on conjecture and unsupported allegations, seemingly intended to embarrass and intimidate counsel, disrupt proceedings and delay fair determination of the Petition.
40. It is asserted that the Application fails to disclose any reasonable cause of action against Mr. Musangi, that it is bad in law and should be dismissed with costs to the 6 th Respondent.
41. The three Applications were canvassed by way of written submissions which are now on record and summarised below.
The 1 st Petitioner’s Submissions
42. Counsel for the 1 st Petitioner filed submissions dated 17 th April 2026 in respect of the Application for the disqualification of Mr. John Ohaga SC as lead legal counsel instructed by the Attorney General. The following issues for determination were framed:
i. Whether the participation of the said counsel creates a real, reasonable, or apparent conflict of interest;
ii. Whether procurement and appointment of external counsel by State organs must comply with constitutional and statutory thresholds;
iii. Whether the impugned appointment violates Articles 10, 73, 75 and 157(9) of the Constitution; and
iv. Whether this Court should intervene in the public interest.
43. It is submitted that the legal standard of conflict of interest extends beyond demonstrating actual bias to include real, reasonable, or apparent conflict or divided loyalties, grounded in constitutional values of integrity, transparency and accountability under Articles 10, 73, 75 of the Constitution .
44. Counsel submitted that Mr. John M. Ohaga, SC, holds a governance role as Chairman of the M-Pesa Foundation, which is intricately linked to Safaricom PLC on the one hand; and that Safaricom is a strategic national asset in telecommunications and financial services with economic and public interest implications on the other hand, whose sale of 15% of its stake to Vodacom Group, a foreign investor, potentially affects corporate control and economic sovereignty.
45. It is urged that Mr. Ohaga’s dual role poses a credible risk of divided loyalty, compromising fiduciary duties and public trust. Counsel cites the cases of Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance v Attorney General & 2 Others where it was held that conflict includes appearance and likelihood, not just actual bias; Mumo Matemu (Interested Party) [2012] eKLR; [2012] KEHC 2480 (KLR) (High Court at Nairobi, Petition No. 229 of 2012, Judgment delivered on 20 September 2012) and R v Neil, [2002] 3 S.C.R. 631, 2002 SCC 70, Supreme Court of Canada, (decided 1 November 2002) where the courts held that strict duty of loyalty requires avoiding conflicts unless full disclosure and consent are obtained.
46. The case of Prince Jefri Bolkiah v KPMG (A Firm) [1999] 2 AC 222 (House of Lords, United Kingdom) is cited, where the House of Lords is said to have held that courts should focus on the risk of conflict itself, regardless of evidence of misuse of confidential information alongside the fiduciary principle from Ex parte James (1803) which reinforces that one cannot simultaneously act where personal interests conflict with duties.
47. On the second issue, it is submitted that the procurement of external legal services by public entities must comply strictly with constitutional principles of fairness, transparency, accountability, equity and good governance under Article 10 of the Constitution and statutory requirements including compliance with the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act, 2015 . That, at the same time, that public interest and Constitutional Supremacy demand that all state organs and actions must operate within the limits of the Constitution, underscoring the rule of law and public confidence in governance.
48. The case of Republic v Public Procurement Administrative Review Board & 2 Others ex parte Noble Gases International Limited [2015] eKLR; [2015] KEHC (Judicial Review Case No. 413 of 2014, by the High Court at Nairobi, is cited in support where it is said to have been held that procurement is a constitutional process requiring adherence to set principles. Counsel also cites the cases of Republic v Attorney General & Others ex parte Transcend Media Group [2015] eKLR; [2015] KEHC (Judicial Review Application No. 29 of 2015 where the court is said to have stated that state organs are subject to judicial review over procurement; Pelt Security Services Limited v Public Procurement Administrative Review Board & Another [2018] eKLR; [2018] KEHC (High Court at Nairobi, Judicial Review Application No. 123 of 2018 ) for the proposition that procurement processes must be transparent, competitive and compliant with the law; and the Supreme Court’s decision in Speaker of the Senate & Another v Attorney General & 4 Others [20131 eKLR; [20131 KESC 6 (KLR) (Supreme Court of Kenya, Advisory Opinion No. 2 of 2013, delivered on 11 December 2013 ) where the court is said to have held that no authority is above the Constitution and that contraventions are invalid.
49. Counsel supports the third issue with submissions that the appointment of TripleOKLaw LLP and Mr. Ohaga as external counsel must be justified under the above principles, given that the transaction involves a strategic transfer of national assets to foreign investors, affecting public finance and sovereignty. He cited an interim order by the Nakuru High Court in Petition No. E001 of 2026 which restrained public entities from engaging external counsel pending determination and which order the Court of Appeal is said to have refused to stay in Civil Application No. E014 of 2026 , thereby reinforcing the necessity of strict compliance.
50. It is submitted that the order in Nakuru High Court prohibited public entities from engaging external legal counsel in matters relating to the Safaricom share sale pending substantive litigation and emphasised the need for accountability, prudence in the use of public funds and transparency under Article 10 of the Constitution . The Supreme Court decision in Gatirau Peter Munya v Dickson Mtvenda Kithinji & Others (2014) eKLR is also cited in which the apex court is said to have affirmed the binding nature of conservatory orders until they are set aside , noting their public law character. Counsel urges that the Attorney General and the Law Society of Kenya failed to secure a stay of the interim order from the Court of Appeal, meaning the order remains binding.
51. Further submission is that failure to comply with court orders is inimical to the rule of law as was held in Teachers Service Commission v Kenya National Union of Teachers & 2 Others [2013] eKLR; [2013] RECA (Civil Appeal No. 196 of 2013. That therefore, Mr. Ohaga’s continued representation of the Attorney General is prima facie unlawful and undermines judicial authority and public confidence.
The 2 nd Petitioner’s Submissions
52. The 2 nd Petitioner’s submissions are dated 25 th April 2026 . He submits on four main issues as follows:
i. Whether a State Officer is permitted to act as counsel for a private entity in proceedings involving public interest and Government financial stake;
ii. Whether such representation gives rise to a real, apparent, or potential conflict of interest;
iii. Whether the threshold for disqualification of counsel has been met; and
iv. Whether this Honourable Court should grant the reliefs sought .
53. It is submitted that the Application is grounded in multiple constitutional Articles, including but not limited to Article 10 on integrity, transparency, accountability as national values; Article 73 (1) (a) on respect of public office as a public trust; Article 73 (2) (b); Article 75(1); Article 201; Article 227 and Article 232 of the Constitution together with the principles in Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance v Attorney General & 2 Others [2012] eKLR, where the Court is said to have held that Chapter Six sets enforceable constitutional standards, not mere aspirations.
54. It is submitted that these provisions collectively establish that State Officers hold public trust and are required to avoid conflicts between personal and public interests. Sections 16 & 26 of Leadership and Integrity Act, 2012; Sections 12 & 13 of Public Officers Ethics Act; Advocates (Practice) Rules together with the case of Mumo Matemu v Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance & 5 Others [2013] eKLR are all cited to anchor the arguments on conflict of interest.
55. On the second issue, it is submitted that the law recognises three types of conflict being Actual Conflict which is direct conflict between duties and interests and a ground for mandatory disqualification; Potential Conflict which entails possible future conflict and which is sufficient for precautionary action; and Apparent Conflict which is perception or appearance of conflict and which latter requires that courts intervene to maintain public trust. That accordingly, apparent conflict alone suffices to disqualify counsel where the public interest is at stake as was held in the cases of Republic v IEBC ex parte Coalition for Reform and Democracy (CORD) [2017] eKLR and Kenya Pipeline Company Ltd v Glencore Energy (UK) Ltd [2015] eKLR .
56. Prof. Ogola argues that the Advocate, Mr. Andrew Mukite Musangi is also the Chairperson of the Central Bank of Kenya Board, qualifying as a State Officer under Article 260 of the Constitution and that such positions create heightened fiduciary and ethical responsibilities, requiring avoidance of conflicts. That therefore, representing a private corporate entity (Safaricom PLC) in matters involving Government shareholding leads to divided loyalty, risking compromised independence, potential access to privileged information pertaining to Government financial affairs and erosion of public confidence in institutional neutrality.
57. The 2 nd Petitioner asserts that the cited judicial authorities reinforce that both actual and perceived conflicts of interest are grounds for inte
[...truncated]