African mobile operators are increasingly opting to share network infrastructure rather than constructing duplicate systems. The decision stems from rising capital costs, inflation, and currency pressures, which have made it economically unfeasible to build parallel networks of towers, fiber routes, and power systems. Instead, companies are entering into agreements to share both passive and active infrastructure.
According to the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), infrastructure sharing can lead to significant cost savings. The ITU-T Recommendation D.264 states that passive infrastructure sharing can decrease capital and operating expenses by as much as 30%, while active infrastructure sharing may result in savings of 50% to 60%. Emmanuel Manasseh, the ITU’s Regional Director for Africa, emphasized the benefits of this approach, stating, “Duplication occurs when multiple operators build networks targeting the same customers in the same locations, but they can share infrastructure…”
“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.” — Emmanuel Manasseh, Regional Director Africa, ITU
Recent agreements highlight this shift from discussion to implementation. MTN and Airtel Africa have established network-sharing agreements in Nigeria and Uganda, which include both passive sites and active network elements. They are also considering expanding these arrangements into additional markets. Likewise, Airtel and Vodacom have collaboration agreements covering Mozambique, Tanzania, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Additionally, in Cameroon, local telecom provider Camtel has partnered with electricity supplier SOCADEL to utilize utility corridors for fiber deployment.
However, concerns arise regarding the impact of such agreements on smaller internet service providers. The six largest telecommunications groups in Africa hold around 60% to 65% of mobile subscribers. When these large operators control crucial infrastructure, smaller companies may find themselves at a disadvantage in terms of access to wholesale pricing and capacity allocation. Regulatory scrutiny of tower transactions has grown, often stipulating conditions like local equity requirements and non-discriminatory access obligations.
National authorities are now considering whether shared infrastructure should adhere to legally enforced, cost-oriented wholesale rates and independent management of access allocations. Current regulatory decisions are beginning to reflect these principles, influencing how future agreements will be structured.
The efficiency gains from infrastructure sharing are evident, as they reduce duplication and allow capital to be redirected toward improving coverage and capacity. However, the regulatory landscape will ultimately dictate how widely these advantages extend across the market.
