On March 23, Namibia’s telecoms regulator, the Communications Regulatory Authority of Namibia (CRAN), rejected Starlink’s licence application. The regulator said Starlink failed three of its six requirements for radio spectrum licencing; it is also seeking 51% ownership stake in the local subsidiary.
Starlink, the satellite Internet company operating in 26 African countries, responding to the licence denial, has said that the rejection does not reflect the full picture and emphasised the regulatory and operational challenges it faces in Namibia. The Internet company launched a public all-out, urging Namibians to push for a review of what it described as a “misleading” call. The Elon Musk-owned company said it received 98.6% public support during the consultation process.
What Starlink says went wrong: In a statement released on its website, Starlink disputed the regulator’s description of non‑compliance, calling it misleading. The company says that over the past three years, it has made clear its intention to establish a local entity, comply with national security requirements, and pay all applicable taxes and fees, in line with how it operates in other markets. When Namibia cited non‑compliance as the basis for rejection, Starlink pushed back, arguing that the decision does not reflect its stated commitments.
Yet, the precedents do not help Starlink’s case. In South Africa, where authorities also demanded local ownership, Starlink’s entry has stalled; in Lesotho, a similar push for local equity ended with the government backing down in 2025 under pressure linked to a US trade deal and thousands of jobs at stake.
In that context, it is hard to take Starlink’s framing at face value. After saying it “made clear its commitment” to establish a local entity, the satellite Internet company goes on in the same statement to stress that it “has global shareholding restrictions and cannot accept local ownership.” Those two points sit uneasily together: you cannot meaningfully “establish a local entity” on the regulator’s terms if you categorically refuse local equity.
Starlink then leans on a political argument. It notes that “while Namibia’s framework encourages local shareholding, it allows for exemptions at the Minister’s discretion. In this case, an exemption was not granted,” signalling that its strategy now hinges less on meeting Namibia halfway and more on persuading the minister to carve out a special deal. It looks like a familiar playbook: reject ownership rules as a matter of global policy, then turn to public opinion and political pressure to force an exemption. It is obvious that the satellite Internet company plans to lobby hard for a Namibian licence, and it is already trying to enlist citizens’ help to get there.
While there is a broader debate over whether African regulators should insist on local ownership from foreign operators at all, Namibia’s position is at least internally consistent: the rules are clear, exemptions are discretionary, and Starlink is asking for a carve‑out it has not earned.
What Starlink is asking for now: Namibia’s regulatory framework allows the regulator to revisit its decision within 90 days, either on its own accord or if an affected party pushes for it through an appeal. Starlink is encouraging that second route by asking Namibians to request an appeal directly from the regulator.