Namibia Rejects Starlink Licence—Company Calls the Regulator’s Ruling “Misleading”
Starlink has pushed back hard after Namibia’s communications regulator rejected its application for a telecommunications licence and radio spectrum access. The company, which is owned by Elon Musk’s SpaceX, says the regulator’s explanation of its alleged non-compliance is “misleading” and wants Namibians to actively pursue a formal appeal.
The dispute centres on Namibia’s attempt to set clear local conditions for companies seeking telecoms licences. On 23 March, the Communications Regulatory Authority of Namibia (Cran) turned down Starlink’s request, saying the applications did not satisfy ownership and compliance requirements.
Starlink’s response is notable because it is the first major public reaction from the company since the decision. In a statement posted on its own channels, Starlink argues it has consistently communicated its plan and operational approach, including its intention to establish a local entity, meet security-related obligations, and pay taxes and fees required under Namibian law.
The company also points out that it operates in 164 markets worldwide, presenting its Namibia application as part of a broader model rather than a special case designed to avoid local rules.
Starlink fires back after Namibia rejects licence bid
At the heart of Starlink’s argument is Namibia’s requirement that licence applicants meet a minimum of 51% local ownership. Starlink says it acknowledged the regulatory framework includes the possibility of ministerial exemptions to that rule, but insists no exemption was granted for its application.
This issue is not isolated. Starlink says it has a global policy opposing local equity dilution—an approach that has complicated its attempts to enter other markets. In South Africa, for example, Starlink’s entry has been slowed by licensing conditions that require 30% equity to be sold to historically disadvantaged South Africans.
Starlink is also challenging Cran’s conclusions around compliance and public interest. The company claims Cran’s findings appear to reflect a misunderstanding of how Starlink says it meets local legal obligations, protects data sovereignty, and supports national security in countries where it operates.
Another claim from Starlink is aimed at Cran’s consultation process. The satellite internet provider says 98.6% of public submissions during the consultation supported its application. However, Starlink did not provide further detail, such as the total number of submissions or how the public consultation was structured.
Still, the company is using those figures to strengthen its narrative that the regulator’s stance conflicts with public feedback. It is essentially saying: if Namibians overwhelmingly backed Starlink, why did the process end in a rejection?
Starlink is also urging Namibians to request an appeal directly through Cran. The company frames this as a practical next step, suggesting that public action could influence how the regulator reassesses the decision.
What Starlink says about its service and its regional impact
Starlink’s statement tries to address concerns it says have circulated widely about its intentions and effects. It specifically rejects claims that it would become a monopoly, threaten national sovereignty, or switch off service for reasons unrelated to technical or legal requirements.
In strongly worded language, Starlink states that it has never turned off internet access in any market unless it was legally required to do so. The company is clearly aware that regulators and the public can be wary of how satellite-based services behave, especially when they operate across borders and rely on infrastructure that is not entirely terrestrial.
Starlink also highlighted what it described as positive connectivity outcomes across Southern Africa. It says it has connected more than 600 health facilities in Zambia, more than 300 schools in Mozambique, and distributed 150 connectivity kits in Botswana at reduced prices as part of Botswana’s SmartBots digital transformation programme.
Those examples are positioned as evidence that Starlink’s model can deliver public benefits beyond commercial internet access—particularly in sectors such as education and healthcare where connectivity gaps are often most severe.
The company also drew attention to Namibia’s ongoing internet divide. Starlink claims more than 30% of Namibians still lack internet access. It adds that 65% of schools do not have reliable connectivity, and that 80% of health facilities are reportedly operating on 3G or worse.
For Starlink, these statistics are meant to underline why it believes Namibia needs satellite connectivity options rather than treating them as a fringe or unproven technology.
How the regulator can reconsider the decision
While Cran’s rejection stands for now, the regulatory process provides potential pathways for change. Starlink notes that Cran’s framework allows the regulator to reconsider its decision either on its own motion or through a petition filed by an aggrieved party within 90 days.
That timing matters because Starlink is pushing a proactive strategy—encouraging Namibians not only to request an appeal, but to do so promptly so the matter can be re-examined before the window closes.
The company also appears to be applying lessons learned from its engagement in South Africa, where it has pursued advocacy directly with regulators and the public. In Namibia, it is now asking citizens to help pressure the decision-making process through formal channels.
For the people of Namibia, the stakes are broader than one licence application. If Starlink is ultimately able to obtain spectrum access and permission to operate, it could potentially expand connectivity options—particularly for rural areas where infrastructure costs and terrain challenges often limit traditional network build-outs. If the regulator maintains its position, Namibia could remain dependent on existing connectivity solutions that Starlink says are still not serving many schools and health facilities effectively.
Ultimately, the next stage will test whether Cran revisits its assessment in light of Starlink’s objections—especially its arguments about local ownership flexibility, alleged compliance misunderstandings, and the strength of public support during consultation.