Global Scrutiny on Musk's Leadership

AUSTIN, TEXAS – Shareholders of electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla Inc. are set to vote on Thursday, November 6, 2025, on a record-breaking compensation package for CEO Elon Musk, potentially valued at up to $1 trillion. The vote at the company's Annual General Meeting (AGM) in Austin, Texas, has become a contentious referendum on Musk's leadership, his increasing political polarisation, and the future direction of the world's most valuable automaker amid declining sales.

The proposed performance-based stock award is contingent on Tesla achieving exceptionally ambitious milestones over the next decade. These include increasing the company's market capitalisation to $8.5 trillion, delivering 20 million vehicles, deploying a fleet of 1 million robotaxis, and manufacturing 1 million humanoid robots. Tesla's board, led by Chair Robyn Denholm, has vigorously defended the package, arguing it is essential to retain Musk and incentivize him to achieve unprecedented growth. In a letter to shareholders, Denholm warned that failure to approve the plan could risk Musk giving up his executive position, which she stated has been "essential to delivering extraordinary shareholder returns."

A Divided Investor Base

The proposal has sharply divided investors. On one side, prominent backers like Ron Baron of Baron Capital Management argue Musk's leadership is indispensable. "Without his relentless drive and uncompromising standards, there would be no Tesla," Baron wrote in a public statement. Supporters contend that aligning Musk's interests with extreme performance targets benefits all shareholders.

However, a growing chorus of influential institutional investors and advisory firms has voiced strong opposition. Norway's $1.7 trillion sovereign wealth fund, Norges Bank Investment Management, announced on Tuesday, November 4, 2025, that it would vote against the package, citing concerns about the "total size of the award, dilution, and lack of mitigation of key person risk." Similarly, the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS), the largest public pension fund in the United States, has also stated its opposition. Proxy advisory firms Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) and Glass Lewis have recommended that investors reject the deal, raising questions about board independence and the sheer scale of the payout.

This vote follows a tumultuous legal history. A previous, smaller pay package for Musk, valued at $56 billion and approved by shareholders in 2018, was voided by a Delaware court in January 2024. Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick ruled that the approval process was flawed and the sum was "unfathomable," criticising the board for a lack of independence from Musk. Tesla is appealing that decision.

Performance, Politics, and Public Perception

The debate over Musk's pay comes as Tesla navigates significant challenges. The company has experienced a notable sales slump in 2024 and 2025. Global deliveries fell in the first quarter of 2025, marking the lowest figures since 2022. For 2024, Tesla reported total revenue of $97.7 billion, a slight increase from the previous year, but vehicle sales have shown signs of slowing.

Critics, including Ross Gerber, CEO of Gerber Kawasaki Wealth and Investment Management, have lambasted the board's focus on the pay package while the company struggles with its core business. Gerber called the package "insanity" and "absurd," questioning the board's independence and suggesting it could lead to further litigation. He argued the deal prioritises Musk's interests over the remaining 85% of shareholders.

Furthermore, Musk's increasingly right-leaning political activism has been linked to reputational damage and falling sales. A recent study by Yale University researchers, published by the National Bureau of Economic Research in October 2025, estimated that the "Musk partisan effect" may have cost Tesla between 1 and 1.26 million vehicle sales in the U.S. alone between October 2022 and April 2025, as his actions alienated the company's traditionally liberal and eco-conscious customer base.

Relevance for Kenya and East Africa

While Tesla has no official presence in Kenya or the wider East Africa region, a small but growing number of its vehicles are being privately imported. Kenyan owners face significant hurdles, including steep import taxes—one owner reported paying KES 7 million in taxes on a Model X—and a lack of official support infrastructure like Tesla's Supercharger network. The high cost positions Tesla as an ultra-luxury item, accessible only to a niche market.

The outcome of Thursday's vote in Texas is significant for this nascent market. Approval of the pay package would signal a doubling-down on Musk's high-risk, high-reward vision for the company, potentially accelerating its ventures into robotics and artificial intelligence. This could eventually influence the technology available in future Tesla models imported into the region. Conversely, a rejection could create uncertainty about Musk's future role and Tesla's long-term strategy, potentially impacting its brand value and appeal among early adopters in frontier markets like Kenya. The Kenyan government has identified the adoption of electric vehicles as a key part of its National Climate Change Action Plan, aiming for 5% of all registered vehicles to be electric by 2025, though the high cost of vehicles like Tesla remains a significant barrier.