Written By Nana Karikari, Senior Global Affairs Correspondent
A high-profile public dispute between Ghana’s government and MultiChoice Ghana, a South African-owned company, highlights the risks of using confrontational tactics to regulate business. While the government’s aim to protect consumers is valid, its public threats to shut down the company could damage Ghana’s reputation as a stable place for foreign investment. This high-stakes confrontation has become a test case for how African nations will manage trade conflicts under the new continental free trade agreement.
Ghana’s Pricing Standoff
The current dispute did not materialize from thin air. It stems from long-standing public frustration over what many Ghanaians consider excessively high prices for pay-TV services. This anger intensified as the Ghanaian cedi strengthened against the United States dollar, yet MultiChoice’s prices remained high. A frustrated subscriber, Richard Ofori, commented online, “They have cheated and looted from the people. Why will their full bouquet cost $69 in Ghana but only $19 in Nigeria?” This sentiment reflects the public’s deep-seated distrust.
Communications Minister, Samuel Nartey George’s direct approach—issuing a 14-day ultimatum and threatening to suspend operations—was a bold response to this public outcry. The government argues that Ghanaians pay “significantly higher fees” compared to other African countries, citing a specific example of the premium DStv package costing “$83 in Ghana, but only $29 in nearby Nigeria.” In response to the standoff, the National Communications Authority (NCA) has since initiated the process to suspend MultiChoice’s license under Section 13 of the Electronic Communications Act, a move the government says is to protect the public interest. The government had also backed this directive with daily fines of GHC 10,000 for non-compliance, which had accumulated to around GHC 150,000.
For its part, MultiChoice has defended its pricing, citing “high operating costs and compliance obligations.” While the company appeared open to dialogue, it later clarified it had not agreed to the government’s deadline. This move, which heightened tensions, shows the company’s attempts to navigate a difficult situation. One online comment asked, “What about the cost of operating in Ghana? These costs were not arbitrarily fixed!” MultiChoice’s offer to freeze prices and halt revenue remittances, which the government rejected, highlights the complexities of their position. MultiChoice now faces a delicate balancing act, as Minister George recently announced the company has finally agreed to discuss a price reduction, a move that could be influenced by its recent acquisition by French media giant Canal+, which has now secured full ownership of the company.
MultiChoice’s African Strategy and Investor Concerns
This dispute also provides a crucial window into the challenges of a pan-African business model. MultiChoice operates in over 50 countries, and its pricing strategy often reflects local economic conditions, currency fluctuations, and operational costs unique to each market. A significant challenge for companies like MultiChoice is managing consumer expectations across vastly different economies and regulatory environments. The Ghanaian case, therefore, is not just a one-off event but a bellwether for how African governments will handle consumer protection issues, especially when they clash with the business models of multinational corporations. It sends a message to other foreign investors, particularly in the tech and telecommunications sectors, about the stability and predictability of the regulatory landscape.
How the Dispute Impacts Ordinary Ghanaians
The real human story belongs to the ordinary Ghanaian consumer and household. They are caught in the middle of a corporate and governmental showdown, hoping for a fairer deal but also worried about potential service disruption or economic fallout. They see the government’s threats as a sign of strength and a promise of a better future. A consumer advocate, Appiah Kusi Adomako, has called out MultiChoice’s “unfair and exploitative” treatment of Ghanaians.
One subscriber, Frank Annor, voiced this frustration, stating, “It’s a shame that MultiChoice have taken advantage of their monopoly to over milk Ghanaians.” This anger is palpable. Consumers are also acutely aware of the disparity with other countries, with one subscriber asking, “All we ask of is subscription fee cuts. Over the years, when the dollar goes high MultiChoice will obviously increase their fees and now that the dollar rate has come down, you must reduce your fees as well. Period!!”
However, the potential for a trade war or a loss of foreign investment could have far-reaching negative consequences for these same citizens. It could lead to job losses and a less attractive business environment, which ultimately hurts the economy and the very people the government is trying to protect.
Weighing Economic Costs and Political Stakes
The government’s threat to shut down a major foreign company raises serious legal questions about regulatory overreach and the sanctity of contracts. Ghana has laws to protect foreign investors, as outlined in the Ghana Investment Promotion Centre (GIPC) Act, 2013 (Act 865). While the government has the right to regulate and enforce fair pricing, doing so through public ultimatums can be perceived as creating an unstable and unpredictable regulatory environment. Such actions could deter future foreign direct investment, which Ghana desperately needs for its economic recovery.
The political angle is equally significant. A public win against a large foreign corporation is a powerful message to a disgruntled electorate. It shows a government championing its people. Conversely, if the negotiations fail or the threats are not carried out, it could expose the government’s posturing as empty rhetoric, damaging its political credibility.
This is not just a domestic issue; it is a diplomatic challenge. The dispute involves a key trading partner, South Africa. High Commissioner Benjamin Quarshie confirmed that South African authorities are concerned about the public nature of the disagreement. He cautioned that public confrontations could “sour relations or create the perception of hostility, especially under the African Continental Free Trade Agreement (AfCFTA).” AfCFTA aims to foster a single continental market, and public disputes between member states, particularly between a regional powerhouse like South Africa and an important economy like Ghana, “does not bode well for intra-African trade,” he explained. The issue, therefore, becomes a test case for how trade disputes will be managed under the new continental framework.
Ghana’s Fragmented Consumer Protection Landscape
A key driver of this crisis is Ghana’s lack of a comprehensive consumer protection framework. Despite almost two decades of discussion, a Consumer Protection Act has yet to be passed. This legislative gap leaves consumers and regulators without a clear legal mechanism to address issues like price-gouging or unfair pricing practices. Instead, regulators must rely on more general laws, which can lead to the kind of public, confrontational tactics seen in this dispute.
The current situation highlights the urgent need for a dedicated, legally empowered authority to manage such conflicts, providing a predictable and fair process for both consumers and investors. While MultiChoice’s DStv and GOtv services dominate the premium pay-TV space, they face competition from a few other players like StarTimes, which offers more affordable packages, and the growing market for over-the-top (OTT) streaming services like Netflix. This highlights that the core of the problem is not a complete absence of competition but rather a lack of robust regulatory tools to ensure fair market practices.
A Tense Path to Resolution
The resolution, as the High Commissioner rightly insists, lies in diplomacy. “We will sit at the table, negotiate, and ensure that nobody loses,” he said. The urgency of this statement is heightened as the government’s September 6 deadline has now arrived, making a potential shutdown a real possibility. MultiChoice has now reportedly agreed to “enter consultative talks” and has submitted the necessary pricing data, a move that could be a step back from the brink. However, this progress was immediately followed by a public statement from MultiChoice denying any agreement to a price reduction, which infuriated the minister. In a social media post, he accused the company of disrespect, stating he would proceed with the shutdown as planned. This has changed, with a definitive breakthrough now confirmed.
In a statement issued on September 7, 2025, the National Communications Authority (NCA) confirmed it has received a response from MultiChoice Ghana regarding its notice of intent to suspend its authorization and its request for a revised pricing model. Following further engagements, the NCA secured three key clarifications: MultiChoice Ghana has agreed to fully participate in the Stakeholder Committee to review DStv pricing; the company will respect the outcome of the committee’s work; and it has pledged to abide by the laws of Ghana and the interests of its consumers.
The NCA disclosed that the first meeting of the Stakeholder Committee is scheduled for Monday, September 8, 2025, after which further updates will be provided. The Minister of Communications, Samuel Nartey George, has also announced that a September 21 deadline has been set for finalising the reduction plan, and that the accrued daily fines would be collected.
It is a crucial moment for Ghana to demonstrate it can balance the interests of its citizens with the need to protect investor relations, proving it is a mature and predictable business destination that respects due process and promotes a stable investment climate.
The sentiment of national sovereignty is also strong, as evidenced by a presidential staffer, Nana Yaa Jantuah, who said of the company, “If you’re not making a profit, you should just say, ‘You are stressing us, so we are folding up.’ The fact that you are still here means there is some kind of benefit that endures from your operations.” The showdown now hinges on whether this public posturing will give way to the pragmatic, behind-the-scenes negotiations needed to prevent an economic crisis.
