For nearly two decades, independent tower companies have provided a neutral platform where mobile network operators can colocate equipment, share costs, and expand coverage without owning the physical infrastructure.
That model is now under pressure following MTN’s $2.2 billion acquisition of IHS Towers.
With the deal, MTN is reclaiming strategic control over assets it once sold and reshaping the economics of telecom infrastructure across its markets. The shift could redraw the competitive landscape, forcing rivals to depend on infrastructure owned by their largest competitor while driving a broader move toward operator-controlled tower networks.
The result may reshape the neutral tower market that helped drive Africa’s mobile expansion.
Why MTN is buying back its towers
MTN’s rationale for the acquisition is rooted in the economic realities of operating telecom networks in volatile markets. According to its filing on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange on February 18, macroeconomic pressures, including foreign exchange volatility, inflation, and rising energy costs, have made tower leasing increasingly expensive and unpredictable.
For MTN, tower ownership is a way to regain control over a major portion of its cost base. IHS currently derives about 70% of its revenue from MTN, meaning the operator has effectively been paying a margin to a third party for infrastructure it relies on heavily. Bringing those assets back in-house is expected to unlock cost savings and operational efficiencies.
Ownership also allows MTN to integrate its infrastructure more tightly across the value chain, from fibre and spectrum to radio sites and data centres. The company says this integration will improve network performance, support 5G deployment, and allow better coordination between its operating companies and infrastructure assets.
In a region where power costs and currency swings can quickly erode margins, controlling towers provides a hedge against volatility. MTN argues that direct ownership will improve its ability to manage risks tied to energy usage, foreign exchange exposure, and infrastructure rollout timelines.
But while the deal may make strategic sense for MTN, its implications extend far beyond one operator’s balance sheet.
The shift from neutral to captive towers
The rise of independent tower companies was one of the defining features of Africa’s telecom boom. Operators sold towers to specialised firms to reduce capital expenditure and focus on customer-facing services. Tower companies, in turn, leased space to multiple operators, creating economies of scale and reducing duplication.
That model depended on neutrality. Tower companies were expected to treat all tenants equally, offering similar pricing and service levels regardless of which operator used their infrastructure.
IHS built its business on this “tower sharing” model. Across its global portfolio, it has approximately 57,691 tenancies, a figure that exceeds its total tower count of 39,025 towers because multiple operators can share a single structure.
The key metric investors watch is the tenancy ratio, or colocation rate, which measures the average number of tenants per tower. IHS aims to have about 1.58 tenants per tower, basically one main customer and roughly half of another on each site, on average.
In theory, this shared model lowers costs for everyone. A second tenant added to an existing tower dramatically improves the tower company’s margins without requiring entirely new infrastructure. For operators, colocation reduces duplication and accelerates rollout.
MTN’s acquisition challenges that assumption of neutrality. According to Segun Cole, CEO of Maasai VC, a mergers and acquisitions Software-as-a-Service platform and marketplace, the transaction is part of a broader shift away from independent infrastructure toward operator-controlled assets.
“We are now moving from a market of independent TowerCos to a market of captive TowerCos,” Cole said. “Smaller players or new entrants will find it nearly impossible to get neutral pricing.”
Even if IHS continues operating as a standalone entity with its own management and governance structure, competitors may worry about subtle advantages for MTN. Access to rollout schedules, maintenance priorities, or tower upgrades could all become strategic considerations, especially in a business where tenancy allocation and upgrade sequencing directly affect network quality.
On paper, MTN has committed to maintaining open-access principles. IHS will continue serving all customers on an arm’s-length commercial basis, and existing agreements with tenants will remain in place. The company has said IHS will retain independent governance and continue pursuing third-party revenue.
But neutrality in practice may be harder to maintain than neutrality in policy.
A nightmare scenario for competitors
For rival operators, the acquisition presents an uncomfortable reality: they may soon be renting space from their biggest competitor.
Cole describes the situation as a “nightmare scenario” for tenants such as Airtel. While contracts ensure continued access to towers, the balance of power in negotiations could shift.
The challenge is particularly acute in Nigeria, which accounts for the vast majority of IHS’s tenants and more than 15,900 towers. The company’s footprint extends across Sub-Saharan Africa, including roughly 5,700 towers in South Africa, 2,678 in Côte d’Ivoire, 2,500 in Cameroon, and 1,900 in Zambia, but Nigeria remains its core market.
Diseye Isoun, CEO of Content Oasis, an internet service provider, argues that IHS Towers’ dominance makes the company unavoidable for operators seeking national coverage.
“You definitely cannot cover Nigeria in terms of having a national network without using IHS towers,” he said. “So there is no escape.”
Operators typically depend on tower companies not just for space but for maintenance, upgrades, and amendments to leases.
It is also important to distinguish between a new tenant and a lease amendment. A new tenant occurs when a second operator collocates on a tower. A lease amendment, by contrast, happens when the same operator adds new equipment, such as upgrading from 4G to 5G antennas.
While amendments increase revenue for the tower company, they are not counted as entirely new tenancies.
If MTN prioritises its own lease amendments and 5G upgrades across thousands of its existing tenancies, competitors could worry about the sequencing of similar upgrades on shared sites.
This lack of alternatives could reinforce MTN’s market position, especially if tower access becomes a competitive bottleneck.
In Nigeria, smaller tower operators such as Pan African Towers (764 towers) and Africa Mobile Networks (4,000 towers) manage far fewer sites, mostly in niche or rural areas.
This concentration means most mobile network operators rely heavily on IHS and American Tower Corporation (ATC), which operates 8,270 towers, for nationwide coverage. Tenants on IHS towers cannot easily switch to new tower companies because towers are fixed, location-specific infrastructure and coverage depends on precise site placement, power availability, and backhaul connectivity. Moving to another towerco would often require building new sites nearby, securing permits, and investing in new equipment, which is costly and time-consuming.
Airtel’s counter-strategy
The acquisition is also likely to trigger strategic responses from competitors, particularly Airtel, which is the operator most capable of bearing the financial and operational costs of migrating to alternative tower companies if needed.
Between February 5 and 10, Bharti Airtel increased its stake in Indus Towers to just over 51%, securing majority control of one of the world’s largest tower portfolios. The move reflects a broader push by the operator to deepen its infrastructure autonomy.
Indus Towers has also begun expanding beyond India, establishing two new step-down subsidiaries in Nigeria and Zambia, according to incorporation certificates issued on January 15, 2026.
For telecom operators, owning tower assets offers greater control over costs, service quality, and network rollout timelines, while reducing dependence on third-party providers. If MTN’s integration strategy proves successful, more operators may be encouraged to pursue similar ownership-driven models.
In Nigeria, Globacom remains the only major operator that runs its tower network in-house. Its self-managed portfolio grew to 8,773.6 towers in 2024, up from 8,550 the previous year, making it the country’s second-largest tower company.
Owning tower assets gives operators greater control over costs and rollout timelines, while reducing reliance on third parties. If MTN’s strategy proves successful, other operators may follow suit.
“By bringing Indus to Nigeria, Airtel creates a safe harbour where they own the towers, mirroring MTN’s move and protecting their margins,” Cole said.
Such a shift would mark a significant departure from the independent tower model that has dominated African markets.
Instead of sharing infrastructure through neutral providers, operators could increasingly build or acquire their own tower networks. That would reduce dependence on competitors but could also increase costs and duplication.
A reset for Africa’s tower industry
The acquisition also aligns with IHS’s ongoing effort to scale back operations outside Africa. After selling its assets in Peru in 2024 and in Brazil and Colombia in February 2026, the company has sharply reduced its Latin American presence as part of a strategy to strengthen its balance sheet and refocus on its core African markets.
With the majority of its tenancies now concentrated in Africa, particularly Nigeria, the strategic importance of these assets to MTN increases.
The long-term impact of the acquisition may depend on how operators respond. If competitors continue leasing towers from IHS, the neutral tower model could survive in modified form. But if operators begin building or acquiring their own towers, the industry could fragment into competing infrastructure networks.
Tower sharing has long helped telecom operators cut costs, reduce environmental impact, and expand networks more quickly. Research from the Toulouse School of Economics (2025/26) shows that sharing infrastructure can lower both capital and operating expenses by 40% to 60%. A study of 107 tower deals across 28 low-income countries (2008–2020) also found that, within two years of a major tower-sharing agreement, the average price of mobile data fell by $1.00 per GB.
The economics of this model depend heavily on the tenancy ratio, the balance between how many towers exist and how many operators share them. If the industry moves away from shared tenancy toward more operator-owned towers, duplication could rise, driving up capital requirements across the sector.
Yet, there is also a potential upside. Greater control of infrastructure may help operators differentiate their networks and improve service quality. A clear example is Jio in India, which runs the world’s largest 5G standalone network.
Because it owns its core network and much of its transport infrastructure, Jio can offer tailored network slices, ultra-low-latency connections for industrial automation, for instance, or high-bandwidth lanes for consumer streaming.
The economics of going private
The transaction also reflects broader changes in how infrastructure assets are financed.
IHS is being acquired at a valuation of $6.2 billion, significantly below its public market peak ($7 billion in 2021 when it went public on the New York Stock Exchange), highlighting the challenges faced by infrastructure companies operating in volatile markets.
For private buyers like MTN, however, lower valuations can represent an opportunity. Cole argues that public markets often undervalue infrastructure companies in emerging markets because of macroeconomic volatility.
On the stock exchange, he said, IHS was being penalised for currency fluctuations and inflation rather than operational performance. By taking the company private, MTN can align investment decisions with long-term network plans rather than quarterly earnings expectations.
“Public markets trade on headlines, while private strategists trade on hard assets,” Cole said.
Regulatory scrutiny ahead
The acquisition is expected to undergo regulatory scrutiny in key markets, especially Nigeria, where competition concerns will be a major focus. The Nigerian government has already stated that it plans to review the deal.
Isoun believes regulators will need to consider the impact on competition and pricing.
“If they do an independent and neutral assessment, it will become very clear very quickly that this acquisition will lead to more monopoly for MTN,” he said.
The deal comes at a time when data prices and network quality are politically sensitive issues. Any perception that consolidation could increase costs or reduce competition may attract scrutiny from policymakers.
Regulators may also need to consider how the deal affects smaller operators and internet service providers, which depend heavily on shared infrastructure. If access to towers becomes more expensive or less predictable, smaller players could struggle to compete.
The future of tower sharing
The long-term impact of the acquisition may depend on how operators respond.
If competitors continue leasing towers from IHS, the neutral tower model could survive in modified form. But if operators begin building or acquiring their own towers, the industry could fragment into competing infrastructure networks.
That would mark a significant shift from the shared infrastructure approach that has defined Africa’s telecom growth.
Tower sharing has historically reduced costs, minimised environmental impact, and accelerated network expansion. Moving away from that model could make networks more expensive to build and operate.
At the same time, greater infrastructure control could allow operators to differentiate their networks and improve service quality.
