Africa’s Operators Are Sharing Networks. Regulators Must Decide the Rules  

African mobile operators are moving away from building fully parallel networks. High capital costs, inflation, and currency pressure have made duplication of towers, fibre routes, and power systems harder to justify. Operators are increasingly signing agreements to share passive and active infrastructure instead. 

According to ITU-T Recommendation D.264 , passive infrastructure sharing can reduce capital and operating expenditure by up to 30%. Active infrastructure sharing can produce savings of 50% to 60%. Emmanuel Manasseh, Regional Director for Africa at the ITU, has described the logic: 

“Duplication occurs when multiple operators build networks targeting the same customers in the same locations, but they can share infrastructure. So if you already have fibre in a place, it is better to share it rather than having two fibres for two different operators for the same services. For example, if you have a mobile network tower, instead of building another one, you share access to the existing tower. Sharing the infrastructure reduces operational costs, reduces capital expenditure, and also helps to identify the gaps so that they can be filled together rather than duplicating what has already been done by others. This can help to drive down costs and therefore create more profitable business.” 

— Emmanuel Manasseh, Regional Director Africa, International Telecommunication Union 

 

Operational Integration Beyond Mobile Networks 

MTN and Airtel Africa  have signed network-sharing agreements covering Nigeria and Uganda. The deals include passive sites and active network elements, and the companies have said they are exploring further arrangements in other markets. Airtel and Vodacom have similar sharing arrangements covering Mozambique, Tanzania, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Cross-sector examples also exist. In Cameroon, Cameroon’s Camtel and electricity provider SOCADEL have partnered to use utility corridors for fibre deployment. 

These agreements show that infrastructure sharing has moved from policy discussion into commercial practice. 

Wholesale Access Risks for Independent Providers 

The six largest telecommunications groups on the continent account for roughly 60% to 65% of mobile subscribers. When large operators co-own or control primary towers, fibre routes, and landing stations, smaller internet service providers and non-owner operators depend on infrastructure controlled by companies that also compete with them at the retail level. 

Shared ownership can affect wholesale pricing, capacity allocation, and the terms on which unused capacity is made available. Regulatory reviews of tower transactions have increasingly attached conditions such as local equity requirements and non-discriminatory access obligations. Equity stakes alone do not automatically determine how access is priced or managed. 

Enforceable Mandates for Non-Discriminatory Access 

National authorities are examining whether shared infrastructure should operate under published, cost-oriented wholesale rates, independent management of access allocation, and legal obligations to offer unused capacity to licensed operators on equal terms. These requirements are already appearing in some approval decisions for infrastructure transactions. 

The commercial case for sharing is clear: it reduces duplication and frees capital for coverage and capacity. The regulatory question is how access to the shared assets is governed once the agreements are in place. The terms set by regulators will determine whether the efficiency gains are available to the wider market or remain limited to the operators that own the infrastructure.