This document provides an overview of Namibia's ICT industry and regulatory framework. It discusses the development of Namibia's ICT sector, telecommunications market, and regulatory body CRAN. It outlines challenges faced by CRAN, including a court case challenging its regulatory powers. Recommendations are made to strengthen CRAN's independence and powers. The conclusion emphasizes the importance of an independent regulator for a properly functioning telecommunications sector.

1. NAMIBIA’S ICT INDUSTRY AND ITS
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Presented by: Clarence Gaingob from Namibia

2. Contents:
1. Introduction
2. Overview of Namibia’s ICT Industry
3. Overview of Namibia’s ICT Industry (cont’d)
4. Overview of our telecommunications sector
5. Overview of our regulatory framework
6. Overview of our regulatory framework and competition law
7. Challenges faced by CRAN
8. Challenges faced by CRAN (cont’d)
9. Challenges faced by CRAN (cont’d)
10. Outcome of the court case
11. Recommendations
12. Conclusions
13. References

3. Introduction
• Namibia known officially as the Republic of Namibia, is a country
in southern part of Africa. Namibia shares its land borders
with Angola and Zambia to the north, South Africa to the south,
Botswana to the east and the Atlantic Ocean to the west.
• This presentation will focus on the overview of Namibia’s ICT Industry
in general and the telecommunications sector in particular, and its
regulatory framework. It will seek to present challenges faced by the
sector regulator and recent court case, it will include my views and
recommendation, followed by the conclusion and references.

4. OverviewofNamibia’sICTIndustry
According to our Overarching Information Communications Technology
(ICT) Policy 2009, the adoption and exploitation of Information and
Communications Technology (ICT) has been instrumental to the
creation of sustainable growth and development by countries in the
last five decades.
The rapid development and commensurate convergence of the
technologies utilised by the telecommunications sectors has created
opportunities for growth in a new competitive space.
From the perspective of a developing country, ICT is both a
prerequisite for economic progress and a major potential contributor
to economic progress.

5. OverviewofNamibia’sICTIndustry (cont’d)
By embracing the development of ICT, Namibians will benefit through:
• The access and availability of information,
• Increased competitiveness of business and commerce in the global
market place,
• The ability to exploit the growing potential of electronic
communications ,
• The ability to collectively deliberate and participate in the
democratic governance of their country through freedom of
expression and access to information via a pluralistic range of media,
• A universal service providing access to affordable, efficient and high
quality services.

6. OverviewoftheTelecommunicationssector
• Namibia is too slow to introduce competition in the mobile market,
with a second operator not licensed until 2006, the market has since
seen penetration rates rise to well above the regional average.
• A new player, Paratus Telecom, has launched LTE services to
compete with those offered by MTC, while in late 2017 the regulator
licensed Demshi Investment and MTN to provide mobile voice and
data services and MVNOs. MTC in late 2017 launched a major
infrastructure program aimed at delivering national population
coverage by October 2019.
• Fixed-line services are still a monopoly of Telecom Namibia, but as a
member of the WTO the government plans to open the telecom
sector to full competition. As part of this process the government
plans to sell a 49% interest in MTC, with 29% to be floated on the
Namibian Stock Exchange.

7. OverviewofourRegulatoryFramework.
The Communications Regulatory Authority of Namibia
(CRAN)- is mandated to regulate telecommunication
services and networks, broadcasting services, postal
services and the use and allocation of radio spectrum and
was established in terms of the Communication Act (No. 8
of 2009) on 18 May 2011.

8. OverviewofourRegulatoryFrameworkandCompetitionLaw
• There is currently a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU)
between the Namibian Competition Commission (NCC) and the
Communications Regulatory Authority of Namibia (CRAN).
• The MoU will enable to two institutions to work together and
advice each other on issues relating to the ICT Industry.

9. Challengesfaced by CRAN
Communications Regulatory Authority of Namibia (CRAN) is managed
by a Board that consists of five members which is appointed in
accordance with sections 14 and 15 of the State Owned Enterprises
Governance Act, 2006 read together with section 8 and 9(1) of the
Communications Act.
Unfortunately, in my view sections 14 and 15 of the SOE Governance
Act, provide for an appointments process that is dominated by the
executive branch of government in that the State-Owned Enterprises
Governance Council (SOE Council) is made up entirely of members of
the executive branch of government and that is the body, together
with the Secretariat thereto, which is responsible for making
recommendations to the Minister responsible for Communications in
respect of the appointment of the CRAN Board.

10. Challengesfaced byCRAN(cont’d).
Consequently the appointments process falls short of international
standards because:
• There is no public nominations process,
• The Parliament which is a multi-party body is not involved in the
appointments process,
• No recommendations are made by any other independent body,
hence, a single party is entirely responsible for the appointments
process

11. Challengesfaced byCRAN(cont’d).
• CRAN was taken to court by the telecommunication operators for
the following:
• Section 23(2)(a) of the Communications Act 8 of 2009 authorises the
Communications Regulatory Agency (CRAN) to by regulation impose
a levy to ‘defray’ its ‘expenses’ as contemplated under section 23(1)
of the Act, for the purpose of regulating the telecommunications,
postal and radio spectrum industries.
• CRAN by regulation published on 13 September 2012 to imposed a
levy of 1.5% on gross income of telecommunications providers.
• Telecom Namibia refused to honour the levy and challenged section
23(2)(a) and the regulation made under it in the High Court, alleging
that the regulation impermissibly had retroactive effect, and section
23(2)(a) either constituted an unconstitutional tax without
representation, or constituted an unconstitutional delegation by
parliament of plenary legislative power.

12. Outcomeofthecourtcase
• The High Court upheld the constitutional challenge holding that
section 23(2)(a) of the Act was a tax as it went beyond what s 23(1)
authorised; there was no connection between the regulatory
scheme and the charges levied based as it was on a percentage and
without actual or properly estimated costs of regulation. The order
of invalidity took effect from the moment the
• See full judgement: https://namiblii.org/na/judgment/supreme-
court/2018/18-0

13. Recommendations
• CRAN needs functional Independence,
• In order for CRAN to be independent it must exercise the powers
vested in it by the Communications Act subject to general policy
guidelines,
• Amendments to current Act needs to strengthen the powers of
CRAN,
• Not inconsistent with the provisions of the Communications Act
issued by the Minister responsible for Communications in terms of
section 7(1) of the Communications Act,
• The requirement that CRAN act subject to Ministerial policy
guidelines must be amended to provide that CRAN must take such
policy guidelines into account,
• The Namibian Broadcasting Corporation (NBC) is currently governed
in terms of the Broadcasting Act, 1991. The Act must be repelled for
CRAN to regulate NBC,

14. Conclusion
According to GSMA (2015), Regulators and competition authorities
need to be aware of changes in the marketplace, and only regulate if
competition law appears to be insufficient, due account being taken of
the dynamics in the marketplace, bearing in mind that the application
of competition law generally leads to more effective outcomes than
the imposition of regulation.
Therefore having an independent regulator is imperative for proper
functioning of the sector, especially in a setup like Namibia were the
government is the main shareholder in almost all telecommunications
operators.

15. References:
• https://ippr.org.na/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/BP25.pdf
• https://www.researchictafrica.net/publications/ICT_Sector_Perform
ance_Reviews_2010/Vol%202%20Paper%207%20-
%20Namibian%20Telecommunication%20Sector%20Performance%2
0Review%202010.pdf
• https://www.cran.na/images/docs/SectorReviewReport/ICT_SECTO
R_PERFORMANCE_REVIEW_FOR_2014.pdf
• http://ictexport.govmu.org/English/Documents/Market%20Intellige
nce/Africa_IO/Namibia/Information%20Technology%20in%20Namib
ia.pdf
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namibia
• https://www.sida.se/contentassets/b8c2a9a2cad04a64a4bb51e02d
ed4908/country-ict-survey-for-namibia_1140.pdf
• https://economist.com.na/30806/technology/ict-competitive-index-
ratings-improve/
• http://www.nacc.com.na/
• https://www.cran.na/index.php/about/who-we-are/cran-mandate
• https://namiblii.org/na/judgment/supreme-court/2018/18-0