• MTN is considering buying back telecom towers it sold years ago, signalling that control of infrastructure matters again in Africa’s digital future.

• After testing the asset-light model, MTN now views towers as strategic assets, crucial for energy costs, network quality, and the 5G rollout.

• The move could reshape African telecoms, challenge tower companies, and force regulators to rethink competition and infrastructure rules.

MTN Group, Africa’s largest mobile phone operator, is preparing a move that could quietly change how the continent’s telecom industry is organised. The company is considering buying IHS Towers, the infrastructure firm that owns thousands of telecom towers used by MTN and its competitors across Africa. If completed, the deal would be worth an estimated 2.7 billion dollars and would mark a major change of direction for MTN.

Only a few years ago, MTN was doing the opposite. Like many telecom companies around the world, it sold much of its tower infrastructure to specialised companies known as tower operators. In South Africa alone, MTN sold more than 5,700 towers to IHS in 2022 for about 6.4 billion rand. The idea was simple: free up cash, reduce heavy investments, and focus on selling services to customers while someone else managed the physical infrastructure.

That strategy was seen as modern and efficient. Tower companies promised lower costs, shared infrastructure and better operational focus. For a time, the model worked. MTN reduced its capital spending and improved its financial ratios. IHS, meanwhile, grew into Africa’s largest independent tower operator, managing more than 37,000 sites across several countries.

Today, MTN appears to have reached a different conclusion. The company now seems to believe that giving up control of its infrastructure also meant giving up too much strategic power. In African markets, telecom towers are not just metal structures. They depend heavily on diesel generators, face frequent power cuts, and are expensive to maintain. Energy alone can represent more than half of the cost of running a tower. When power fails, networks fail, and customers notice immediately.

By owning the towers again, MTN would be able to manage these challenges directly. It could invest faster in solar panels and battery systems, reduce fuel costs, and improve network reliability. Other operators on the continent have already shown that cleaner energy solutions can significantly cut costs and reduce outages. For a network as large as MTN’s, the long-term savings could be substantial.

Control of infrastructure also matters as networks become more complex. The rollout of 5G and future digital services requires more sites, closer together, and better coordination between network equipment and physical locations. When infrastructure is owned by a third party, every change requires negotiation. Ownership removes that friction and allows faster decision-making.

There is also a quieter issue at play: information. Tower owners know where operators are expanding, upgrading, or struggling with capacity. If MTN were to fully control IHS, it would have visibility over sites used not only by itself but also by competitors. Even without any wrongdoing, this creates an imbalance that regulators are likely to examine closely.

Regulatory approval will therefore be one of the biggest hurdles. Authorities in Nigeria, South Africa and other markets will want assurances that MTN would not block access to towers or raise prices unfairly for rivals. They may require strict rules on pricing, transparency, or even the sale of some towers in highly concentrated areas.

Governance concerns have also played a role in the changing relationship between MTN and IHS. In recent years, MTN publicly expressed dissatisfaction with how some aspects of IHS were managed. Disagreements between a major client and an infrastructure provider can quickly become strategic problems, especially when long-term network quality is at stake. Full ownership would eliminate those tensions.

If MTN goes ahead with the acquisition, the impact will go beyond the two companies involved. Other major operators in Africa may start questioning whether outsourcing critical infrastructure still makes sense in markets where energy, reliability and speed are becoming central to competition.

What is unfolding is not just a corporate transaction, but a reassessment of priorities. After years of selling assets to appear lighter and more flexible, Africa’s largest telecom group is signalling that infrastructure control still matters. In a continent where digital access is increasingly tied to economic growth, the battle for the future of telecoms may once again be fought from the ground up.

Idriss Linge