Elon Musk has once again failed to get his way, with Starlink, his satellite-based broadband network service, denied a licence in Namibia for failing to comply with local laws requiring a minimum 51% domestic shareholding in telecoms companies.

The South African-born multibillionaire, who is now a US citizen, previously encountered the same roadblock in his home country, where Starlink ran into regulatory trouble in early 2025.

But unlike in Namibia, where regulators formalised a licence refusal on local ownership grounds, in South Africa the saga revolved around a combination of transformation policy and, crucially, a failure by Starlink to lodge a formal application with the country’s telecoms regulator.

In South Africa, telecoms licence applicants must comply with broad-based black economic empowerment (BBBEE) regulations, which, among other goals, require at least 30% of the equity to be held by individuals from historically disadvantaged groups.

Starlink has at times portrayed the BBBEE regulations as discriminatory. Musk publicly asserted in a rebuke of the country posted in March 2025 on the X microblogging platform – which he owns – that Starlink had not been able to operate in South Africa “because I’m not black”. At the time, local media reported that Starlink’s parent company, SpaceX, had written to the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (Icasa) – the telecoms regulator – telling it that it should reconsider the 30% ownership requirement for licensees.

However, it soon emerged that Starlink had not applied for a licence at all. Icasa maintained that the company would be permitted to operate in the country if it complied with existing laws, including the BBBEE ownership stipulation.

Despite the recent regulatory frictions in South Africa and Namibia, Starlink’s technology and business model have earned widespread recognition globally. By providing high-speed, low-latency broadband through low-Earth-orbit satellites, the service reaches areas not covered by traditional fibre and mobile networks.

In South Africa, for example, rural communities and remote enterprises stand to gain from reliable Internet connectivity that can support education, healthcare, agriculture and small-business operations.

It is no surprise, then, that many countries across Europe, the Americas, Asia and Africa have licensed Starlink to operate, recognising that the company offers a practical solution to bridging digital divides. 

That said, even a service as transformative as Starlink cannot operate outside national laws. Regulatory frameworks are not meant to obstruct innovation, but to safeguard sovereignty and sometimes to promote local participation. 

The South African and Namibian cases underline a simple truth: technological ambition does not exempt companies from compliance. Musk must listen when African host nations say: “You are welcome. Your preferred equity structure is not.” After all, we are talking about telecoms here, a strategic sector, and spectrum, a national asset.

It’s striking that he appears to be hell-bent on resisting regulatory requirements in this part of the world, especially considering that his other enterprises routinely acquiesce to rigorous oversight and strict regulations in other regions.

One example: in Europe, X Corp was hit with a €120-million fine in early December last year for breaching the EU’s Digital Services Act, forcing structural changes to transparency and user-verification systems rather than withdrawing from that market. We did not hear him publicly denouncing the bloc. Instead, compliance negotiations, including an order to publish algorithmic details and commit to ongoing oversight, have proceeded through formal channels.

Also in Europe, his electric vehicle business, Tesla, has spent years working with regulators in the Netherlands and across the continent to secure type approval for its Full Self-Driving software, attending weekly meetings, submitting to audits and adapting vehicle systems to satisfy safety requirements.

In the US, Musk’s companies operate under the scrutiny of multiple federal agencies – from safety inspections by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to Federal Communications Commission reviews of spectrum use. Where required, they adjust their conduct to meet prescribed conditions.

If Musk can submit to fines in Brussels, audits in Amsterdam and federal oversight in Washington, it is unclear why the rules should bend in Africa. Our laws are no less legitimate than those elsewhere.