SICPA’s Africa file opens: Four countries, millions of dollars in bribes and presidential-level access

The record

The file begins in Istanbul

The Ledgers is opening an examination of a series of documents concerning SICPA’s activities in the African market. At the centre of the first file is a consultancy agreement said to be dated 1 December 2019. The dossier text supplied to the editorial team describes an arrangement between a communications and public-relations company in Istanbul’s Levent district and Veritas Communications Ltd., based in the British Virgin Islands. This first article distinguishes that account of the contract and invoices from public records that can be verified. [1]

According to the account, Veritas was tasked with developing relationships with public-sector clients in Uganda, Kenya, Somalia and Tanzania, recommending local partners and increasing sales of security-technology products. The text lists smart-card, magnetic-stripe-card, optical-card and memory-card systems. The Istanbul company’s authority to market these products, whose behalf it was acting on and any contractual connection to SICPA remain open questions in the examination. [1]

What does the $820,000 figure represent?

The dossier text puts the combined value of two invoices said to have been issued for a six-month arrangement at $820,000. It also describes a revenue share of between 12 and 15 per cent payable to the intermediary if a government contract were signed. The individual invoice amounts, payment terms and the revenue base for calculating that percentage remain to be checked against the original documents. [1]

At this stage, the $820,000 cannot be presented as money that was paid or drawn from public funds. Issuing an invoice does not establish that payment took place. The text supplied for this article states that the file contains no bank transfer receipt or activity report demonstrating that the services were performed. Whether the money was paid and, if so, its source and ultimate recipient are under examination. [1]

The condition concerning presidential-level access

The account of clause three links the intermediary’s exclusivity to arranging a high-level meeting. Where the prospective client was a state, securing a face-to-face meeting at “Presidential or senior Ministerial level” would reportedly extend exclusivity in the relevant country by six months and for the duration of negotiations. [1]

This provision indicates the importance the commercial arrangement placed on access to senior public officials. It does not, on its own, establish that a meeting occurred, that a public official received a payment or that a procurement decision was influenced. Answers require examination of meeting records, authorisation documents and financial transactions.

The dossier text also says clause eight contains commitments to comply with the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and not to provide improper benefits to public officials. Florida law and the courts of Miami were reportedly selected for disputes. The scope and actual implementation of these terms will be examined against the original contract and the parties’ statements. [1]

What do public records say about Hudani?

The supplied text identifies Alykhan Hudani as the person said to have signed for Veritas. However, his signing authority, Veritas’s ownership structure and the claim that Hudani acted as an adviser to SICPA have not been verified through the public sources examined for this article. [1]

Verifiable business records concern a different activity. IFC’s project record for HMH Rainbow Limited identifies the Ugandan businessman Hudani as a 66.5 per cent shareholder. The financing proposal for the producer known by the Yo Kuku brand comprises an IFC loan of up to $5 million and IDA financing of up to $2 million. IFC’s board-approval table records $5 million; the page, updated on 1 August 2026, has the status “Hold”. This record does not establish that a total of $7 million was disbursed. [2]

Uganda’s Ministry of Agriculture records in its 2014/15 report that President Yoweri Museveni opened the $10 million facility in Semuto in November 2014. A statement dated 2 August 2025 from Sierra Leone’s High Commission in Nairobi describes Hudani as its appointed honorary consul to Uganda and says Uganda’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs had no objection. These two records corroborate public business and diplomatic activities; they do not establish why the intermediary was selected in 2019 or prove any authorisation from SICPA. [3][4]

The legal context of the African contracts

SICPA’s tax-stamp projects in East Africa have prompted public debate. Each country’s contract and judicial proceedings must nevertheless be assessed separately. On 27 October 2023, Kenya’s Court of Appeal held that the challenged procurement involving SICPA was not irregular, reversing the High Court’s contrary decision. That judgment also needs to be recorded when describing the controversies. [6]

An audit report by Tanzania’s Public Procurement Regulatory Authority records that the contract was signed on 30 May 2018. Its initial five-year term was reduced by an amendment dated 10 December 2018 to three years from the date the entire system went live. Uganda’s parliamentary record of 15 August 2023, discussing the contract dated 4 October 2018, also includes the government’s defence that direct procurement was lawful. [7][8]

The Swiss Office of the Attorney General’s announcement of 27 April 2023 concerns a separate case: SICPA was ordered to pay a CHF1 million fine and faced a CHF80 million compensatory claim for failing to take the necessary measures to prevent bribery in Brazil, Colombia and Venezuela. The announcement also states that proceedings against the company’s CEO and shareholder were discontinued. This outcome is not a finding of criminal wrongdoing concerning the African agreement described here or the people named in this article. [5]

SICPA said in a statement issued the same day that it would not contest the decision but disagreed with its grounds, and that it had remedied its past organisational deficiencies. This is the company’s position on the 2023 case; it is not presented as a response to the new Africa file. [10]

Why examine the timeline in Türkiye?

The reported agreement date is 1 December 2019. A written parliamentary question submitted to Türkiye’s parliament on 17 December 2021 states that the tender for the tax-stamp system, announced on 18 October 2019, was cancelled on 6 December 2019. The two dates are therefore five days apart. The cancellation information here comes from the parliamentary question’s account; it has not been rechecked against the original cancellation decision for this article. [1][9]

The proximity of the dates raises a possible connection worth examining, but it does not establish a financial or legal link between the two transactions. Establishing such a link requires examining the companies’ chain of authorisation, contracts, service records and payment transactions together. The existence of public projects in Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania likewise does not, on its own, prove that this intermediary agreement naming four countries was made on SICPA’s behalf.

The next steps in the examination

The central questions are specific: On whose behalf was the Istanbul company acting? What authority did Veritas have? Were the two invoices paid? Did the high-level meetings take place? Was a public contract signed that triggered the revenue share?

The Ledgers will continue examining documents received and those that may follow in this series, publishing verifiable findings alongside the relevant parties’ statements. No new response from the parties was obtained for this first article. The file will be updated as verification of the original documents, examination of payment trails and assessment of responses progress.

Based on reporting from: The Ledgers editorial file — supplied account of the 1 December 2019 agreement and invoices; originals under verification, not publicly linked; IFC — YoKuku Mezz, project 44775; updated 1 August 2026; Sierra Leone High Commission — Proposed consulate in Kampala, 2 August 2025; Uganda Ministry of Agriculture — Annual Performance Report 2014/15, printed page 113; Swiss Office of the Attorney General — SICPA corporate criminal liability, 27 April 2023; Kenya Court of Appeal — Commissioner General KRA v Okoiti, [2023] KECA 1278, 27 October 2023; Tanzania PPRA — Annual Performance Evaluation Report 2020/21, printed page 187; Uganda Parliament — Hansard, 15 August 2023, URA–SICPA contract debate; Grand National Assembly of Türkiye — M. Akif Hamzaçebi written question, 17 December 2021; SICPA — Company statement on the Swiss disposition, 27 April 2023.