Hello

@Mwendwa, comparing safaricom and the likes of mumias telecom kenya and mumias is not right. I dont think safaricom is playing the same field as these companies, and again they aint shell companies if u get to understand there objectives.

Safaricom has been able to thrive because it has allowed innovation to thrive yet if we look at the case of telecom kenya the beauracracies that was involved did not let the idea of innovation thrive within it, and again i dont think kenya airways is even close to be at the same table as saf, for aguement sake maybe a restructuring of its capital will let them out of the hole for a bit say why borrow money to buy expensive boeings yet wherr u borrow there is a cost and where r buying there is eve a greater cost than remaining vile vile!

Someone agued some times back that the case in turkana where they are seeing a vgreat economic development for a short span may not hold since there are no right institution that can channel the growth and development to a level as norway. My point being that since the structures and policies thst has led to the status of mumias we archaic ( if thats the word) and that they were allowed to thrive in a modernized environment where competition thrives hences the porus nature of the organization.

If we dont allow institutilnal restructuring in our country we may never get to where norway is assuming our major resource is not just oil like norway but any other that u think fits in my arguement.

At some point in the industrial revolution the american economy was support almost completely by oil steel snd electricity which where controlled extremely by monopoly. These drove to great social and economic disparity and a great gap between the wealth and not just rich, and the poor. Politics intervined at one point that allowed the wealth trickle to the or and thus an environment for innovation competition and creativity

I dont see any case of capital flight in any case due to the politics involved.

Unless the foreign investors are threatened and the environment in kenya becomes risky we will still have airtel prefer kenyan market and even continue to invest in assets within the contry simply because of the challenge that they are exposed to. If the risk is too high then the returns must guarantee the opportunity cost.

Sent from Samsung Mobile

This is a debate that Kenyans should not take lightly. For any law that comes into force, the citizens must be consulted widely.
Here are a few questions I've been asking myself :
1. Are we fighting proxy wars? Who wants Safaricom dead?
2. Is there any citizen in his right mind who wants to see Safaricom go the way of Telkom, Kenya Airways, Mumias... Remember these shell companies were once the pride of the nation.
3. Airtel is the largest mobile operator in South Asia and the third largest in the world with a 303 million subscriber base. Safaricom subscriber base worldwide is less than 10% of that.
4. Airtel has a total equity of US$26 billion with revenue of about $15 billion compared to Safaricom's around $2 billion with $1.4 billion revenue. Are these two companies competing at the same level?
5. As of year 2012, Orange had a revenue of €43.5 billion and equity of €24.3 billion and total assets of €90 billion. Are these companies worth us Sacrifice our toddler Safaricom?
5. Would Safaricom enjoy the same rights as Airtel in say, India or France? Would Safaricom get a licence in the first place in these markets?
6. We have seen how multinationals steal from Kenyans by evading taxes through transfer pricing, declaring false losses, etc. Why would we want to kill our crown jewel in support of thugs?
7. Capital flight: where do profits of these multinationals go as compared to those of Safaricom?