Bravo, MACRA for taming Multichoice Africa’s arrogance on legal compliance

Lately, there’s been a lot of misinformation circulating regarding the ongoing MACRA-MCM tariff dispute, particularly in the context of Multichoice Africa’s decision to withdraw DSTV services from Malawi.

Let’s take a closer look at the facts and clear the air.

MACRA, the Malawi Communications Regulatory Authority (MACRA), was established under the Communication Act of 2016 with a clear mandate: to regulate and monitor communication services and spectrum management.

The communications sector includes broadcasting services providers, such as MBC, GoTV, Azam TV, Zuku TV, DStV, Times TV, and Zodiak TV, just to mention a few. MACRA mandate includes overseeing licensing and ensuring compliance with the Act.

One central issue in the dispute is the implementation of tariffs without prior approval from MACRA, contrary to Section 74 of the Communications Act. This has led to a back-and-forth battle between MACRA and Multichoice Malawi (MCM), with MCM arguing that their DSTV service isn’t intended for the public and hence should be exempt from these tariff adjustment approvals.

However, it’s essential to understand the genesis of this issue. The process began with MCM submitting tariff requests, followed by a public announcement of tariff adjustments.

The situation escalated when MACRA flagged a breach of the Communications Act and MCM’s SMS licence, leading to legal proceedings.

After a series of hearings, legal battles, and negotiations, the situation resulted in the withdrawal of DSTV services in Malawi.

There are concerns about potential job losses due to this decision, but MCM has reassured the public that they will continue offering GO TV services.

It’s important to note that MACRA’s role is to ensure that all entities in the ICT sector, including MCM, operate within the confines of the law and in the best interests of the public.

The dispute doesn’t revolve solely around tariff adjustments but rather adherence to legal and regulatory obligations.

While some might question the decision to withdraw services, it’s crucial to remember that ongoing legal proceedings are yet to determine the outcome of the dispute.

Rather than speculating, it’s advisable to wait for the court’s determination, as Malawians have been doing business in this market for a considerable period.

In conclusion, the MACRA-MCM dispute is a complex matter that revolves around legal compliance and regulatory oversight.

The role of both parties is integral to the functioning of the ICT sector and the protection of consumer interests.

While emotions run high, we must respect the legal process and await a definitive resolution instead of protesting against the court’s decisions and preempting the ultimate determination of the dispute.

Kudos to MACRA for maintaining its commitment to regulatory standards amidst these challenges.

Let’s keep the discourse grounded in facts and informed perspectives.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in the article are those of the author not necessarily of The Maravi Post or editor