Nigeria’s Minister of Communications, Innovation and Digital Economy, Dr Bosun Tijani, says the Federal Government will assess MTN Group’s proposed acquisition of IHS Towers, positioning the review around consumer protection, investor safeguards, and the long-term sustainability of the telecommunications sector. He also framed telecoms infrastructure as strategic to national security, economic growth, financial services, innovation, and social inclusion.
The intervention comes as MTN and IHS confirmed a definitive deal that would see MTN buy the remaining stake it does not already own and take IHS private, valuing the transaction at roughly $6.2 billion (enterprise value), with shareholders set to receive $8.50 per share.
Why the deal is sensitive
Towers are not just real estate assets. They are the physical backbone behind coverage quality, network expansion, and service continuity. Any shift in who controls large volumes of these sites raises competition, resilience, and pricing concerns, particularly in markets where a small number of operators already dominate mobile subscriptions and data usage.
Government’s intervention signals two priorities.
- First, competition and fair access. If a major mobile operator gains increased influence over tower infrastructure, regulators will be under pressure to prevent discriminatory access, preferential pricing, or arrangements that disadvantage competing operators.
- Second, critical infrastructure protection. Towers underpin emergency communications, digital commerce, banking services, and day-to-day productivity. Any transaction that changes control dynamics can trigger national-interest scrutiny, especially around operational resilience and service reliability.
What Nigeria can realistically do
Nigeria cannot regulate the deal simply because it is happening at the group level. What it can control is what happens inside Nigeria through approvals, licensing conditions, competition enforcement, and sector specific obligations.
In practical terms, Nigeria’s leverage sits in four places.
- Competition review and remedies
Nigeria’s competition regulator can require remedies that protect consumers and the market structure. These remedies are usually either behavioural or structural. Behavioural remedies include non-discrimination rules, transparent pricing, and strict service-level obligations. Structural remedies can include ring-fencing local assets and governance or requiring divestments in areas where dominance is proven. - Telecoms sector permissions
Telecommunications regulators can insist that any changes affecting licences, infrastructure arrangements, or market conduct meet sector rules. This is where access obligations, quality standards, outage reporting, and continuity requirements are often enforced. - Investment and market confidence considerations
Policy signals matter. A hardline posture can increase perceived regulatory risk. A rules based process that ends in clear, enforceable conditions is more likely to preserve investor confidence while protecting competition. - Critical infrastructure safeguards
Government can demand stronger resilience measures, disaster recovery requirements, and continuity commitments for tower operations in Nigeria, framed as part of national infrastructure protection.
How public reactions are shaping up
The response to the Minister’s statement is splitting along three lines.
- Monopoly risk
One side is focused on market power. Their concern is that consolidation could lead to higher tower lease costs, tighter access, or subtle forms of exclusion that slow competitors’ network expansion. - Investor confidence and policy risk
Another side warns that intervention, if poorly handled, could chill investment in a sector that needs capital for coverage expansion, fibre buildout, and quality upgrades. - National interest framing
A third group supports scrutiny on the basis that telecoms infrastructure is now inseparable from national productivity and security, and should be treated with heightened oversight.
Precedent suggests conditions, not theatre
In many markets, infrastructure deals of this nature are rarely blocked outright. Regulators typically approve them with conditions designed to prevent harm, including non-discrimination obligations, governance controls, and monitoring.
Nigeria has precedent for telecoms infrastructure transactions requiring regulatory approvals and conditions, particularly where market structure and consumer impact are in play.
What to watch next
Three signals will determine the direction of this story.
- Whether regulators open a formal competition review process and begin outlining remedies.
- Whether sector regulators publish conditions tied to access, pricing transparency, and service reliability.
- Whether MTN and IHS pre-emptively commit to enforceable safeguards such as ring-fencing Nigerian operations, equal access guarantees, and transparent lease pricing mechanisms.
For consumers, the practical issue is not who owns the towers in principle. It is whether the deal results in better coverage, fewer outages, faster rollout, and pricing behaviour that does not get passed down as higher data and service costs.
