Why Starlink has not applied for a licence in South Africa
Communications minister Solly Malatsi says the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (ICASA) has yet to receive any licence applications from SpaceX’s Starlink.
ANC MP and member of the Portfolio Committee on Communications and Digital Technologies, Imraan Subrathie, asked the minister about the status of Starlink’s licence application before ICASA.
In a reply dated 11 June 2026, Malatsi said ICASA confirmed it had not received any licence applications from Starlink for any of the following:
- Spectrum allocation
- Individual Electronic Communications Network Service (I-ENCS) licence
- Individual Electronic Communications Service (I-ECS) licence
The minister also said Starlink had not applied to transfer any of these licences from an existing holder to itself.
Malatsi added that he could not comment on B-BBEE conditions that apply to these licences and denied any engagement between his department and SpaceX.
Over several years, a number of politicians have highlighted that Starlink had not even applied to ICASA for the relevant licensing in South Africa.
However, framing the lack of applications as indicative of Starlink’s lack of interest or disrespect for South African regulations is disingenuous.
Starlink’s parent company, SpaceX, is keenly aware that it cannot apply for the licences because it does not meet ICASA’s current requirements for licensing.
Under the Electronic Communications Act (ECA), telecoms licensees are required to be at least 30% owned by historically disadvantaged groups (HDGs).
These include Black people, women, youth, and people with disabilities. For BEE purposes, Black is defined as black Africans, Indians, Coloureds, and certain people of Chinese descent.
Additionally, since ICASA is not currently granting new licences, Starlink would need to apply to transfer a licence from a local entity licensee.
Even in the case of a transfer, the satellite Internet provider would still need to meet the 30% HDG requirement.
Sources close to the matter have told MyBroadband that the communications regulator effectively told Starlink not to bother with submitting licence applications as they would be rejected.
Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (B-BBEE) legislation allows for equity equivalent investment programmes (EEIPs) in other industries as an alternative to the 30% ownership requirement.
Malatsi has issued a policy direction to ICASA to align its regulations with the provisions of the Amended ICT Sector Code and B-BBEE Act to accommodate EEIPs in the telecoms sector.
If EEIPs were implemented in the sector, foreign players like Starlink could be granted licences to operate locally if they commit an alternative investment that advances South Africa’s transformation goals.
ICASA pushes back
ICASA’s Annual Performance Plan for 2026/27 mentioned this policy directive but did not include performance indicators for its progress.
Asked about this, Malatsi told MyBroadband that he would demand answers from ICASA on the reasons for the lack of sufficient detail on the policy direction.
“The law is clear that ICASA must consider the policy direction, and the expectation is that it must happen within a reasonable time,” the minister said.
Malatsi added that consideration of the policy direction could not continue indefinitely. Amongst others, his directive proposed amending the 30% ownership requirement to allow EEIPs to be recognised.
“EEIPs are a legally recognised pathway for investment in South Africa for companies that do not have local shareholding,” Malatsi’s department said.
It added that EEIPs ensure inclusion by enabling international firms to invest in the country while committing to broader empowerment goals through a series of measurable outcomes.
However, in May 2026, ICASA said it would not consider changing the BEE ownership regulations for telecoms licences until the law was amended.
In a statement, the regulator resisted Malatsi’s attempts to introduce EEIPs in the sector. It said it remained committed to advancing transformation and empowerment.
“ICASA is enjoined to advance the historically disadvantaged groups as guided by the Electronic Communications Act,” it said.
The regulator explained that the ECA required a minimum 30% ownership by HDGs by individual licence holders. However, this is a disputed interpretation of the law.
When introduced in 2006, it stated that the percentage “must not be less than 30%, or such higher percentage as may be prescribed”.
This was amended to the following wording in 2014: “must not be less than 30%, or such other conditions or higher percentage as may be prescribed under section 4(3)(k) of the ICASA Act”.
Some telecoms industry experts argued the use of “or such other conditions” in this case meant ICASA could already recognise EEIPs without changing the law.
ICASA has sided with those who maintain the ECA must be amended first, which would require a legislative process with public participation, approval from Parliament, and sign-off by the President.
However, it did not explain why the ECA prevented it from aligning its regulations with other sectors in South Africa.
“The Authority will continue to engage with the Ministry within the confines of its mandate,” ICASA stated.
Loading ...