Sportpesa, operated by Pevans East Africa Limited, had been one of Kenya’s most recognizable brands for years, at one point ranking among the country’s most profitable firms and securing the second-most popular brand position behind Safaricom. In July 2019, the Betting Control and Licensing Board (BCLB) suspended its licence due to tax disagreements with the Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA), which reportedly involved amounts in the tens of billions of shillings.
According to a detailed document seen by ‘Business Report’, the systematic transfer of Pevans’ entire operating infrastructure – brand name, paybills, short codes, customer database, staff, and premises – to a newly formed company, Milestone Games Limited, took place without Milestone paying for any of it. Central to how that transfer became operationally possible was Safaricom PLC.
The Paybill Transfer
Pevans operated two M-Pesa paybill numbers, 955100 and 955700, through which the vast majority of Sportpesa’s betting transactions flowed. These paybills, along with associated short codes and USSD access, were transferred and activated for Milestone Games on 30 October 2020.
The dossier raises several specific, checkable claims about the circumstances of that transfer: 1. An active court preservation order. 2. Pending litigation involving Safaricom itself. Those orders remained in force until 5 December 2020 – meaning they were live on the date Safaricom is alleged to have activated the paybills for Milestone.
Regulatory Approval and Litigation
The document alleges that transferring paybills and short codes for a gaming operator requires prior clearance from the Communications Authority of Kenya and the then gaming regulator (BCLB), clearances that were never obtained before Safaricom activated the numbers for Milestone. Additionally, Safaricom had filed submissions in that case – meaning, if accurate, Safaricom was simultaneously a litigant against Sportpesa’s interests and the entity facilitating Milestone’s takeover of Sportpesa’s infrastructure.
Read Also: Kenya Airways losses deepen to 16 billion
Safaricom activated the Milestone paybills within roughly a day of application, contrasted with an alleged two-week standard turnaround for other operators. This is presented as evidence that compliance was a choice available to operators, and that Safaricom chose differently.
The Karungaru Letter and Licence Question
A supporting document referenced in the account is a letter and affidavit from Wilson Karungaru, the sole natural-person director of Milestone Games at the time. In it, Karungaru reportedly states he applied to Safaricom on Milestone’s behalf on 29 October 2020 for the paybill transfer, which was activated the following day. The letter also expresses unease about funds being “disbursed to strange entities… unknown to me,” a claim framed as evidence of possible money-laundering concerns even from within Milestone’s own leadership.
Milestone continued operating and advertising as a licensed BCLB operator through 2021/2022 under Licence No. 000205, a licence that had actually been issued to a different company, Hardwick Limited, trading as Bollywood Casino. If accurate, this would mean Safaricom continued to platform Milestone’s betting and jackpot services on its network for a period during which Milestone held no valid gaming licence.
The dossier argues that Safaricom had every reason to know the individuals behind Milestone were the same people who ran Pevans, pointing to Ronald Karauri and Francis Kiarie holding roles as both Pevans directors and undisclosed majority beneficial owners of Milestone. The document also notes that a Pevans company secretary, who had filed numerous prior cases against Safaricom on behalf of Sportpesa-linked entities, was well known within Safaricom’s legal department.
It is a fact that the sequence described in the letter raises substantive regulatory questions, including whether a licensed telco activated financial infrastructure in defiance of a live court order and whether it bypassed statutory approval processes for a gaming operator. However, it is essential to note that no court finding establishes that Safaricom acted unlawfully in the paybill transfer, and no regulatory sanction against Safaricom over this matter is referenced in the dossier or independently confirmed.
Leave a Reply