The standoff between Minister for Communications, Samuel Nartey George, and the South-African-owned PayTV service, MultiChoice Ghana, operator of DSTV, has sparked heated debate among not only consumers, but also analysts and political opponents.
Known for his fiery stance, the Minister is demanding a 30% reduction in DSTV subscription. His justification? The recent appreciation of the cedi, as well as the improved macroeconomic indicators, which were the same reasons why MultiChoice hiked prices in times past.
To some, the Minister’s assertiveness is a welcome defense of the ordinary Ghanaian consumer. To others, it represents a worrying intrusion into free market operations.
At the heart of this heated power play is the question, Are Ghanaians victims of economic injustice, or are they simply paying the price for the harsh economic environment in which companies like MultiChoice operate?
This question demands are careful analysis, particularly through the lens of Ghana’s liberal economic framework, which emphasizes market competition, private sector leadership, and limited state interference.
The Case of Economic Injustice
Critics of MultiChoice Ghana’s pricing structure, including the Minister, argue that the disparity in DSTV subscription rates across countries is egregious and unjustified. Sam George has pointed to Nigeria as a stark comparator, which reveals that Ghanaians pay significantly higher across all the DSTV packages.
For instance, the DSTV Premium package costs the equivalent of about ₦29,500 ($29), while in Ghana, the same package exceeds GH₵1,200, which is about $83. The minister has described this case as corporate exploitation, and has gone as far as instructing the National Communications Authority (NCA) to consider revoking DSTV’s licence if prices are not slashed.
Other critics frame the issue as a market abuse stemming from monopolistic control and a lack of domestic competition. In their view, MultiChoice Ghana is capitalizing on its dominance to charge Ghanaians unfair rates, even when exchange rate movements and tax conditions may be easing.
Even consumer protection advocacy group, CUTS International, backs this view, arguing that the absence of a competition law in Ghana enables dominant players to dictate prices unilaterally, leaving consumers unprotected. They have called for Parliament to urgently pass such legislation to prevent future abuses.
But on the other end, is this truly corporate greed?
The Cost of Doing Business in Ghana
MultiChoice Ghana, in defending its pricing, points to operational costs driven by Ghana’s macroeconomic fundamentals. Their argument hinges on several key factors:
Taxation and Import Costs: Ghana imposes hefty taxes on its digital broadcasting services. This includes VAT, National Health Insurance Levy, the COVID-19 Health Recovery Levy, and others.
Foreign Exchange Volatility: The Ghana cedi has seen extreme fluctuations in recent years, with its value against the dollar swinging by over 50% in some periods. Since MultiChoice imports content, satellite services, and technical equipment in foreign currency, the cost of providing service is tightly linked to forex movements. Even if the cedi has recently stabilized, businesses often price with a forward-looking risk premium, assuming potential future shocks.
Inflation and Utilities: General inflation, which only recently began slowing, remains elevated. Electricity tariffs, which are critical to satellite broadcasting, have also risen steeply over the past 18 months. These feed directly into operational overheads.
In this context, the company argues that its pricing is not exploitative but reactive to the cost of delivering the same service Ghanaians demand, often with local content investments and customer support layers that aren’t present in larger markets.
The Reality of a Liberal Economy
Ghana’s liberal economic model embraces market-led pricing and minimal direct government control over private business decisions. In such a system, pricing is meant to be determined by demand and supply, competition, and cost realities, not state fiat.
While governments can regulate unfair practices, price-setting directives are often considered anti-market and can send negative signals to investors.
This is why the Minister’s threats to suspend MultiChoice’s license, while politically popular, raise difficult questions: if allowed to stand. Many analysts fear this could set a precedent for government intervention in other sectors, from telecoms to fuel, food, and beyond.
The liberal economic framework emphasizes competition, not coercion. If Ghanaians are paying more for TV, perhaps the real issue is the lack of alternative providers who can offer similar quality at lower costs.
The government’s role, then, would be to lower entry barriers for new players, ensure fair taxation, and create an environment where price competition can thrive.
A Case of Dual Realities
The truth likely lies between the two extremes. There is an element of market failure, worsened by weak consumer protection laws and the dominance of a single player in the pay-TV space.
However, there is also a genuine cost burden facing businesses in Ghana, many of which operate in environments far more expensive than their regional peers.
Labeling the DSTV price disparity as a simple “economic injustice” may overlook these nuances. At the same time, pretending that competition and regulation don’t matter would ignore the legitimate concerns of consumers struggling with affordability.
Many analysts are recommending that for Ghana to navigate this standoff wisely, it must resist the urge for populist intervention and instead pursue structural fixes such as passing a competition law, reforming tax burdens, enhancing regulatory clarity, and encouraging industry competition.
Until these are done, the debate about forcing a price reduction will only scratch the surface of a more profound problem.
