Dr. Bashir Gwandu is a telecommunications expert who should know and actually knows the knitty gritty about global nay African telecommunications sectors. Dr. Gwandu has held various chairmanship positions at both the ITU and Commonwealth including the ITU Radiocommunications Advisory Group (the RAG), The Joint Task Group, and Commonwealth ITU Group (CIG)… With this rich background, Gwandu is not one whose advice or suggestions on telecommunications should be neglected, without risking gargantuan consequencies.
At the 9th Sub-Sahara Spectrum Management Conference, held in Nairobi, Kenya on 6-7 November, 2024 which was organised by Forum Global on the theme: “From WRC-23 to WRC-27- Emerging Landscapes & Technologies and the Path Ahead,” Gwandu passionately urged and advised African countries to unite and work together to secure 600 megahertz (MHz) band mobile spectrum allocations.
While making a presentation on the session: “The shape of Post-WRC Spectrum Ecosystems”, he called for cooperation among African countries at the forthcoming World Radiocommunications Conference 2027 (WRC-27) to enter Footnote 5.307A, which are radio regulations used to make spectrum allocation for a country or some countries. Being among those who played a key role in founding the African Telecommunications Union (ATU –WRC) coordination meetings, Gwandu did not hesitate in expressing disappointment that the continent’s focus on collaborative efforts was waning.
The man was not merely crying wolf where there was none. At the core of the discussions was the 600MHz (3GGP n71) band, a key frequency range that many countries worldwide are increasingly allocating for IMT to support 4G and 5G networks. While several nations in Regions 2 and 3, as well as some in ITU Region 1, have designated this band for mobile, some African countries are not yet ready to make the switch to co-primary allocation.
We understand that Region 1 comprises Europe, Africa, the Commonwealth of Independent States, Mongolia, and the Middle East west of the Persian Gulf, including Iraq.
• Region 2 covers the Americas including Greenland, and some of the eastern Pacific Islands.
• Region 3 contains most of non-FSU Asia east of and including Iran, and most of Oceania.
According to Gwandu, a former Acting Executive Vice Chairman and Chief Executive Officer(EVC/CEO) of the Nigerian Communications Commission(NCC) 11 African countries had made request at the WRC-23 for primary mobile allocation of spectrum and IMT identification in the 614-694MHz band, but only Egypt had its request granted while countries like Rwanda, Guinea, Benin Republic, and Cameroon, blocked requests from 10 other African nations with similar aspirations.
The 10 countries that were blocked include Nigeria, Senegal, Mauritania, Libya, Chad, Gambia, Sudan, Namibia, Somalia, and Tanzania. According to Gwandu, a former Executive Vice Chairman and Chief Executive Officer(EVC/CEO) of the National Agency for Science & Engineering Infrastructure(NASENI), fighting for status quo to remain or ‘No Change’ in this case was akin to refusing an available front seat and fighting for a back seat.
“Therefore, colleagues, something clearly went wrong at WRC23, and we as Africans need to address it. We must work together, have positive dialogue on challenges, and optimize the use of opportunities. Reasonable countries have always found solutions to accommodate the needs of their neighbours instead of blocking them,” he said, urging African Telecommunication Union (ATU) to remain effective by following its rules.
He added that the 600MHz band issue is clear: the world is moving towards IMT in this band, with some countries ready now and others later. “Eventually, most of us will adopt it. Many region 2 and Region 3 countries have taken primary allocation to mobile in the band, and even in region 1, a number of countries have already changed the use status of this band to include either primary or secondary mobile.”
Dr. Gwandu urged those not ready not to obstruct others that were prepared to move forward. Countries developed at different rates, and the ITU Resolution 26 that required consent before amending footnotes was intended to promote harmonization, not to delay a clear direction, or block progress, he said, adding that there was need to provide regulatory certainty to different industries.
According to him, if many countries in other regions and Africa had not taken the steps to upgrade the mobile service in the band, “then yes, we can try to convince colleagues in Africa to hold, but, this is not the case. The direction is now clear – 600MHz band will be allocated on a primary basis to mobile. It is almost black and white,” he added.
“When we meet as a family, we must be honest with ourselves. Some of us who helped to initiate the ATU WRC coordination meetings are disheartened by how we, as Africans, continue to fight each other in order to win the occupancy of the back seat, whilst neglecting each other’s interests.
“When making decisions, we must consider the unique circumstances of each country, such as geographical size, population and data demand, the capital expenditure required for coverage, the dispersed nature of our rural settlements, the 50 per cent urban to rural connectivity-divide in Africa and the energy costs to power the high throughput systems in rural areas,” he added.
Gwandu was dead right when he said these factors differed for each country, and thus the frequency allocation solution for a smaller country like Rwanda or Benin could not be the same for larger nations like Nigeria or Namibia. He could not have said it better.
The germane question to raise at this juncture is why African countries should be undermining themselves on such a critical matter as pulling together on ITU Resolution 26 that required consent before amending footnotes, moreso, when the reason for the consent was intended to promote harmonization, not to delay a clear direction, or block progress? Why would some African countries decide to block others on a crucial matter as securing spectrum resource that potentially could affect the lives and livelihoods of its teeming population? Are political differences enough to excite this opposition when a thorough cost-benefit analysis could have caused them to vote otherwise? Could there have been other motivations for the opposition? Has ignorance of the spirit and letter of the consent document draughtmanship any role to play in this? For example, within regulatory circles, there is this belief that regulators have an attitude to defer what they do not readily understand?
We make bold to ask why the question of ignorance would creep into the equation when the regulators on the continent have the unbridled latitude to peer-review themselves?
We are of the strong view that African countries must pull together as there is need to provide regulatory certainty to different industries on a continent-wide basis, but working in silos and or deciding to block others, can only create more uncertainties.
Clearly, African countries put the wrong foot forward by their mutual opposition at WRC23. But WRC-27 is still months away and to our mind, African countries have some time to correct their mistake at WRC23 and activate Footnote 5.307A. We advocate strategic meetings of African policy makers and regulators to brainstorm and come up with bold decisions to eliminate and or minimize areas of disagreement so that block African activation of Footnote 5.307A is achieved ahead of WRC-27.
The time is ripe for ATU and other stakeholders to rein in on their members to eschew their differences and save Africa from remaining at the backwaters of telecommunications.
Gwandu’s call for cooperation among African countries to secure 600 MHz at WRC-27 must not fall on deaf ears. The world is watching!
