Namibia became the latest African country to shut the door on Elon Musk’s satellite internet service, Starlink.
The Communications Regulatory Authority of Namibia resolved to decline Starlink’s applications for both a telecommunications service license and access to radio spectrum, effectively blocking the company’s planned nationwide rollout.
Starlink is currently banned or restricted in Côte d’Ivoire, Burkina Faso, the Democratic Republic of Congo, South Africa, Senegal, Mali, and Cameroon, countries where the company began attracting users without first signing agreements with governments.
The reasons differ by country, but they cluster around the same recurring concerns.
South Africa is the most prominent case where Starlink needs to meet a licensing requirement that mandates 30% ownership of any telecom company by historically disadvantaged groups, a policy designed to address the economic exclusions of the apartheid era.
The company has not structured a compliant entity, and South Africa’s regulator told the BBC that Starlink had not even submitted a license application.
Elon Musk responded by framing the requirement as racial discrimination against him personally; in his words, he is “not Black.”
In Cameroon, the objection was framed around security rather than ownership. Authorities banned the import of Starlink equipment, with the customs directorate declaring the service a national security threat on the grounds that its lack of a license meant it was not subject to oversight by the Telecommunications Regulatory Board.
The concern about what governments cannot see or control runs through several of these cases. Analysts say regulators across the continent worry that because Starlink has no physical infrastructure in their countries, it is not possible to turn off the internet, and the company cannot be held responsible for content transmitted over its signals.
There is also a tax dimension. Officials are concerned about the company reaching citizens without paying taxes or regulatory fees. One policy analyst described Starlink’s model as “economically lopsided, extracting value without contributing to local economies.”
The Namibian case had its own texture within this broader pattern. Namibia’s main mobile operator had opposed Starlink’s application, raising concerns about possible violations of communications laws and past unlicensed operations.
It was not just industry players who weighed in. Public consultations drew over 1,100 submissions from members of the public, most of them backing Starlink’s entry. That wave of popular support was not enough.
It is also not the first time Namibia has tangled with the company. In November 2024, the regulator issued a cease-and-desist order against Starlink for operating without a license. The formal application process that followed has now ended in refusal.
The politics of entry matter too, coming in the form of political alignment. In Zimbabwe, President Emmerson Mnangagwa granted Starlink a license after the company agreed to an exclusive partnership with a telecoms firm owned by a businessman close to the president.
In Kenya, a local ownership requirement was waived after Starlink reached a deal with President William Ruto. The pattern suggests that in some markets, regulatory approval depends less on policy compliance than on who picks up the phone.
For Namibia, the decision allows a 90-day window for reconsideration if either Starlink petitions the authority or if the regulator chooses to review it independently.
Whether the company pursues that route will say something about how seriously it takes this market and how willing it is to meet African regulators on their own terms rather than waiting for them to bend.
READ: Mawingu to Deploy Starlink Internet to 450 Rural Hubs in Kenya
Starlink is not accessible to the majority of Africans anyway, largely because of cost.
The people most likely to benefit from satellite internet in terms of connectivity gaps are rural communities, who are also least likely to afford it.
That tension sits underneath all of these regulatory fights: a service that promises to connect the unconnected, blocked, or stalled in the markets where the need is greatest, while the argument about who controls the infrastructure and who profits from it continues to play out in government gazettes.
