M-Pesa, the mobile money service that revolutionised financial transactions in Kenya and beyond, represents one of the most impactful innovations in fintech history.

Since its launch in 2007 by Safaricom in collaboration with Vodafone, M-Pesa has provided financial services to millions who previously had limited access.

However, beneath its success lies a complex debate over who deserves credit for its creation.

Various individuals and organisations have staked claims to its ownership, leading to legal battles and public controversies that raise important questions about copyright law and intellectual property (IP) in the realm of collaborative innovation.

The widely accepted narrative credits Nick Hughes and Susie Lonie of Vodafone with the creation of M-Pesa. Their work, supported by a grant from the UK’s Department for International Development (DFID), was aimed at enhancing microfinance in Kenya.

Safaricom, Vodafone’s Kenyan subsidiary, played a crucial role in bringing the project to life, making mobile money transfers accessible to millions.

Michael Joseph, who was the CEO of Safaricom at the time, was instrumental in advancing the project and adapting it to meet the unique needs of the Kenyan market. Safaricom’s local knowledge and infrastructure were vital in ensuring M-Pesa’s rapid adoption and success.

The ownership controversy surrounding M-Pesa primarily involves claims by various individuals and entities over the idea’s originality and subsequent development.

One of the most notable claims was made by Faulu Kenya, which argued that they had been working on a similar mobile banking concept in conjunction with Safaricom before the launch of M-Pesa.

They claimed that their ideas and strategies were used without acknowledgement or proper compensation, leading to a legal dispute that sought recognition of their contributions.

This situation underscores the complexities inherent in determining intellectual property ownership when innovations result from collaborative efforts.

Faulu Kenya’s case exemplifies the challenges that arise when multiple parties contribute to the development of a product, especially in the absence of clear agreements on IP ownership from the start.

Nyagaka Anyona Ouko, a former student of the Jomo Kenyatta Institute of Agriculture and Technology (JKUAT), also claims to have invented M-Pesa by presenting a certificate of copyright as evidence dating back to 2012. 

While by then M-Pesa was already major player in Kenya’s economy, Ouko claimed that he pitched the idea to Safaricom and got his reward from Michael Joseph. 

Copyright law is designed to protect original authorship works, including software, systems, and processes. However, copyright primarily safeguards the specific expression of ideas, such as the code or design used to implement a service like M-Pesa, rather than the underlying concepts themselves.

This distinction is crucial in cases like M-Pesa, where the debate centres on whether the idea of mobile money transfer—or the specific way it was implemented—can be owned. Without patents that protect specific technological innovations, copyright law’s ability to resolve such disputes is limited.

A patent could provide stronger protection by granting exclusive rights to the technological methods or processes used in M-Pesa, but without one, the broader concept of mobile money might remain open to interpretation and claims from various contributors.

The M-Pesa ownership debate reflects a broader issue in the technology sector, where innovation often arises from collective input rather than individual invention. When multiple entities collaborate on a project, it can be difficult to establish clear boundaries of ownership.

This ambiguity can lead to disputes, as seen in the case of M-Pesa, where different parties have sought recognition and compensation for their roles in the service’s development.

The lack of clear intellectual property agreements from the outset of M-Pesa’s creation allowed these disputes to arise. This situation highlights the importance of defining IP rights early in any collaborative project, particularly in the fast-moving and competitive tech industry.

The controversy surrounding M-Pesa’s ownership offers important lessons for future innovators and businesses. It emphasizes the need for clear, detailed agreements regarding intellectual property rights before embarking on collaborative ventures.

These agreements should outline the contributions of each party, the ownership of resulting innovations, and the mechanisms for resolving potential disputes.

Moreover, while copyright law plays a critical role in protecting specific expressions of ideas, it may not be sufficient to safeguard broader technological innovations.

Innovators should consider the full range of IP protections available, including patents, to ensure that their contributions are adequately protected.

M-Pesa’s success is not only a testament to the power of technological innovation but also a case study in the complexities of intellectual property in a collaborative world.

The debates over M-Pesa’s ownership underscore the importance of IP law in recognizing and protecting the contributions of all parties involved in creating groundbreaking technologies.

As the legal battles surrounding M-Pesa continue to unfold, they remind innovators and businesses alike that securing intellectual property rights is as crucial as the innovation itself.

Clear IP frameworks and agreements are essential to ensuring that all contributors receive the recognition and rewards they deserve for their roles in advancing technology.

Grace Otieno is a holder of a Certificate in Copyright Law from Harvard School of Law