Five years after regulators tried to level Ghana’s telecom playing field, the opposite has happened. MTN’s market share hasn’t just held steady; it’s expanded dramatically, raising uncomfortable questions about whether regulatory intervention actually works or simply delays the inevitable.
The numbers tell a stark story. Back in 2020, when the National Communications Authority declared MTN Ghana a Significant Market Power (SMP), the telco controlled about 57% of the voice market and nearly 68% of data. Today? Reports suggest MTN now commands over 75% of active mobile subscribers and roughly 90% of total industry revenue. That’s not correction; that’s consolidation.
Appiah Kusi Adomako, a competition economist and West African Regional Director of CUTS International, isn’t mincing words about what this means. He’s calling for an urgent review of MTN’s SMP status and the measures attached to it, warning that Ghana’s sliding toward a “winner-takes-all” telecom landscape that could have serious consequences for consumers, innovation, and national security.
But here’s where it gets complicated. MTN hasn’t broken any rules. The company invested heavily, took risks, expanded coverage into areas other operators wouldn’t touch, and built genuine scale. So why punish success? Adomako stresses that’s not the point, and it shouldn’t be about cutting down the strong but rather ensuring the weak can actually compete.
The regulatory measures introduced after the 2020 SMP declaration seemed reasonable on paper. The NCA mandated on-net/off-net parity so MTN users couldn’t get cheaper rates calling within their network. Asymmetrical interconnect rates let smaller operators pay lower termination fees to MTN. There was infrastructure sharing, regulatory approval of certain MTN tariffs, and requirements for national roaming in underserved areas.
Yet half a decade later, AirtelTigo is reportedly shutting down cell sites over unpaid debts and struggling to stay afloat. Vodafone hasn’t exactly surged ahead either. And consumers? They’re not seeing the promised benefits. Data prices have risen rather than fallen, service quality complaints persist, and the expected competition-driven improvements remain largely theoretical.
What went wrong? Adomako points to something regulators often overlook: the government’s dual role as both referee and player. The state holds stakes in struggling operators, creating a conflict of interest that blurs accountability. How do you regulate fairly when you’re also a shareholder in companies that are losing ground? It’s like being both the coach and the umpire in a game where your team is getting thrashed.
There’s also a national security angle that doesn’t get enough attention. A telecom market dominated by one operator introduces what Adomako calls “systemic fragility.” If MTN suffers a major cyberattack, network outage, or system failure, the impact would be nationwide. Voice, data, mobile money services could all collapse simultaneously. When one company controls 90% of industry revenue, that’s not just market concentration; it’s a single point of failure for Ghana’s entire digital economy.
The irony is that the SMP designation was supposed to prevent exactly this scenario. Section 20(10) of the Electronic Communications Act gave the NCA authority to intervene when one operator’s dominance threatened fair competition. The assumption was that corrective measures would gradually rebalance the market, giving smaller players room to grow while preventing MTN from using its size to crush competitors.
Instead, what we’ve seen is something economists call “network effects” overwhelming regulatory intervention. The more users MTN attracts, the more valuable its network becomes, which attracts even more users. It’s a self-reinforcing cycle that gentle regulatory nudges can’t easily disrupt. Meanwhile, smaller operators lack the capital to match MTN’s infrastructure investments or marketing reach, creating a gap that widens rather than closes.
Adomako’s proposed solution involves more than just tweaking existing measures. He’s calling for a comprehensive review that asks fundamental questions: Are the current remedies actually working? If not, why not? What would a genuinely level playing field require in 2025’s market conditions?
His recommendations include government incentives for non-SMP operators through tax breaks, favorable spectrum allocation, or infrastructure support. The catch? This means government sacrificing upfront revenue to enable long-term competition, betting that a healthier market will eventually generate more value than short-term spectrum auction proceeds.
“Government must be willing to sacrifice some upfront revenue on spectrum allocation and other taxes to enable the non-SMPs to grow before they can be ‘weaned off’ any state support,” Adomako noted. It’s a politically difficult ask in a country where every cedi of government revenue matters.
There’s also the question of whether Ghana’s market can sustainably support multiple major operators. Some economists argue that telecom is a natural monopoly or oligopoly due to massive infrastructure costs and network effects. If that’s true, regulatory efforts to maintain artificial competition might be fighting economic gravity.
But Adomako maintains the fight is worth it. Competition isn’t just about market share percentages; it’s about innovation, consumer choice, and preventing any single entity from having too much control over critical national infrastructure. The goal shouldn’t be punishing MTN for efficiency but ensuring the system allows others to compete meaningfully.
The next steps matter. If the NCA conducts a serious review and finds current measures ineffective, it’ll need political backing for potentially controversial interventions. That might include stronger asymmetric regulation, infrastructure mandates, or even structural remedies. And if the government’s unwilling to make those moves? Then Ghana should be honest about accepting a dominant-operator model rather than maintaining the fiction of competitive intervention.
What’s clear is that the current approach isn’t delivering the promised results. Five years is long enough to assess whether regulatory measures are working. The data suggests they’re not. The question now is whether Ghana’s willing to double down on competition or accept that its telecom future looks a lot like MTN, with everyone else playing supporting roles.
