News of The South | Technology, Governance and Accountability | 29 October 2026

 

By Princess Eugene Majuru

 

Zimbabweans deserve affordable internet, not geographical explanations that fail to address the real causes of high data prices.

 

Zimbabwe’s Minister of Information Communication Technology, Postal and Courier Services, Tatenda Mavetera, has come under scrutiny following remarks attributed to her in which she reportedly explained Zimbabwe’s expensive internet data by pointing to the country’s landlocked geographical position and the fact that internet connectivity is imported.

 

The explanation, as reported, raises serious questions about the government’s understanding of the challenges facing Zimbabwe’s telecommunications sector and, more importantly, its commitment to finding practical solutions.

 

Although the precise wording and context of the minister’s reported response have not been independently established, the argument itself deserves examination.

 

Zimbabweans are entitled to ask a simple question: If being landlocked is the reason internet data is so expensive, why are other landlocked African countries able to offer more affordable connectivity?

 

Zambia is landlocked. Botswana is landlocked. Rwanda is landlocked. Uganda is landlocked. Yet these countries have pursued different telecommunications policies, investment strategies and regulatory approaches.

 

Geography may influence the cost of providing internet services, but it cannot reasonably be presented as the complete explanation for Zimbabwe’s affordability problems.

 

The country’s geographical location has not suddenly changed. What can change are government policies, taxation, competition, infrastructure investment and regulatory decisions.

 

These are matters within the influence of government.

 

Internet is not imported like fuel or groceries

The suggestion that Zimbabwe’s internet is expensive simply because it is imported risks misleading the public about how modern telecommunications work.

 

Internet connectivity is not a physical commodity transported across borders in trucks.

 

Zimbabwe accesses international internet networks through fibre-optic connections linking the country to neighbouring states and, ultimately, undersea cables connecting Africa to the rest of the world.

 

The country already has international fibre connections through South Africa, Mozambique and Botswana.

 

Internet service providers purchase international bandwidth and operate infrastructure that carries digital traffic to customers.

 

Yes, international connectivity costs money. Yes, maintaining telecommunications infrastructure is expensive. And yes, Zimbabwe’s geographical position can increase transmission costs.

 

However, these factors are only part of the pricing equation.

 

The final price paid by consumers also reflects taxation, licensing charges, electricity costs, infrastructure maintenance, competition, operating expenses and commercial pricing decisions.

 

A serious government response should examine all these factors rather than concentrating on geography.

 

Why are other landlocked countries doing things differently?

Zambia provides an important comparison.

Like Zimbabwe, Zambia has no coastline and must rely on cross-border connections to reach international submarine cable networks.

 

However, the two countries have historically adopted significantly different telecommunications licensing arrangements.

Zimbabwe’s high operator licensing fees have been identified as a potential barrier to investment and competition.

When telecommunications companies face excessive entry costs, high taxes and expensive operating conditions, those expenses can eventually be passed on to consumers.

The problem is therefore not simply where Zimbabwe is located on the African map.

It is also how Zimbabwe manages the telecommunications industry within its borders.

 

Rwanda offers another useful example of how a landlocked country can pursue digital transformation through coordinated infrastructure development, public-private partnerships and policies designed to expand connectivity.

 

Zimbabwe should be studying such approaches and adapting successful elements to its own circumstances.

Instead of explaining why things cannot be cheaper, the ministry should be explaining what it is doing to make them cheaper.

 

Government taxation deserves serious examination

One issue that cannot be ignored is the financial burden placed on telecommunications operators.

 

Internet providers face various taxes, licensing obligations and regulatory charges.

 

Some of these are legitimate and necessary to finance public services and maintain effective regulation.

 

However, when the cumulative burden becomes excessive, consumers may ultimately pay the price.

 

Government cannot continue demanding affordable internet while maintaining policies that potentially make providing that internet unnecessarily expensive.

 

A comprehensive review of telecommunications taxation is overdue.

 

The Ministry of Finance, the ICT Ministry and the Postal and Telecommunications Regulatory Authority of Zimbabwe (POTRAZ) should jointly examine which charges are essential, which are excessive and which could be reduced without undermining public revenue.

 

Any tax reductions should be accompanied by enforceable expectations that operators pass meaningful savings to customers.

 

Otherwise, tax relief could simply increase company profits without improving affordability.

 

Can satellite internet provide the answer?

Absolutely. Satellite technology can form an important part of Zimbabwe’s solution, although it is not a complete replacement for fibre and mobile networks.

 

Modern low-Earth-orbit satellite systems have changed the telecommunications industry by enabling internet connectivity without requiring a conventional fibre connection to every individual location.

 

Services such as Starlink demonstrate how satellite broadband can reach areas where traditional network infrastructure is inadequate or commercially difficult to install.

 

This is particularly relevant to Zimbabwe’s rural communities.

 

Consider schools in remote parts of Mashonaland, Matabeleland, Masvingo, Manicaland and the Midlands where pupils struggle to access digital educational resources.

 

Consider rural clinics requiring reliable connectivity to communicate with hospitals, access medical information and support remote consultations.

 

Consider farmers who need weather forecasts, agricultural information, market prices and digital payment systems.

 

Satellite internet could significantly improve access for these communities.

 

Zimbabwe has already authorised Starlink to operate, meaning the question is no longer whether satellite internet is technologically possible.

 

The real question is how government can make satellite connectivity affordable and accessible to ordinary Zimbabweans.

 

Satellite services still require equipment, electricity, subscription payments and regulatory compliance. They are therefore not automatically cheap.

 

But they introduce additional infrastructure options and potential competitive pressure.

 

The government should welcome that competition rather than allow unnecessary regulatory costs to undermine its benefits.

 

Seven practical solutions to reduce Zimbabwe’s internet costs

1. Reduce unnecessary telecommunications taxes and licensing charges.

 

Government should commission an independent assessment of the total regulatory and tax burden on internet providers and identify opportunities to lower costs. Any reductions should be linked to measurable consumer benefits.

 

2. Expand satellite internet access.

 

Satellite providers should be encouraged to compete fairly, while government develops targeted programmes for rural schools, clinics, community centres and underserved areas. Shared satellite connections could reduce the cost per user.

 

3. Encourage genuine competition.

 

Zimbabwe needs an environment where additional internet service providers can enter the market without prohibitive financial and regulatory barriers. More competition can encourage lower prices, better service and innovation.

 

4. Invest in national fibre-optic infrastructure.

 

Satellite technology should complement, not replace, terrestrial networks. Expanding fibre connections, improving cross-border capacity and allowing providers to share infrastructure can reduce long-term transmission costs.

 

5. Reduce electricity-related operating expenses.

 

Unreliable electricity increases the cost of operating telecommunications towers and network equipment. Expanding dependable power supplies and supporting solar-powered infrastructure can help operators reduce operating costs.

 

6. Introduce affordable education and community data packages.

 

Government should work with telecommunications companies to establish genuinely affordable packages for pupils, university students, teachers, small businesses and low-income households. Public libraries and community facilities should also provide accessible internet services.

 

7. Publish transparent internet pricing reports.

 

POTRAZ should regularly publish independently verified comparisons showing the actual cost of mobile data in Zimbabwe and neighbouring countries, including the price of standard bundles relative to average household incomes.

 

These reports should explain taxes, network performance, consumer complaints and whether operators are passing efficiency savings to customers.

 

Without transparency, the public cannot properly evaluate claims made by either government or telecommunications companies.

 

Affordable internet is an economic necessity, not a luxury

Zimbabwe cannot seriously pursue digital transformation while internet access remains financially burdensome for large sections of its population.

 

The modern economy depends on connectivity.

 

A university student needs internet access to conduct research and complete assignments.

 

A journalist needs connectivity to gather information, verify facts and publish news.

 

An entrepreneur needs it to advertise products, communicate with customers and receive orders.

 

A farmer needs access to markets, weather information and agricultural advice.

 

Young people seeking employment need to search vacancies, submit applications and attend online interviews.

 

When internet access becomes unaffordable, these opportunities become restricted.

 

The consequences extend beyond inconvenience. Expensive data can deepen educational inequality, discourage entrepreneurship, reduce productivity and limit economic participation.

 

Zimbabwe’s digital transformation ambitions will remain difficult to achieve unless the cost of connectivity becomes compatible with ordinary household incomes.

 

What happened to the promise of affordable connectivity?

Interestingly, Minister Mavetera has recently called upon POTRAZ to prioritise affordable broadband, consumer protection, infrastructure sharing and greater competition.

 

Those are sensible policy objectives.

 

But public declarations must now translate into measurable outcomes.

 

Zimbabweans should be told what targets have been established, when reductions in costs can reasonably be expected and how the government intends to hold service providers accountable.

 

The ministry should publish a national internet affordability strategy with clear implementation dates.

 

It should also explain how the Universal Service Fund is being utilised to expand connectivity to underserved communities.

 

Money collected in the name of universal telecommunications access must produce visible public benefits.

 

It is not sufficient to announce digital transformation programmes while ordinary citizens continue struggling to afford the data required to participate in them.

 

Minister Mavetera must answer the questions that matter

The public deserves answers to several important questions.

 

What proportion of Zimbabwe’s retail internet prices is attributable to international bandwidth purchases?

 

How much is attributable to taxation, regulatory charges, electricity and infrastructure maintenance?

 

How do Zimbabwe’s telecommunications licensing arrangements compare with those of Zambia, Botswana and other regional countries?

 

What concrete steps has government taken to lower the cost of connectivity?

 

Has the ministry considered targeted reductions in taxation and regulatory fees?

 

What is being done to ensure satellite internet becomes accessible beyond wealthier urban households?

 

And perhaps most importantly, when will ordinary Zimbabweans begin seeing meaningful improvements in internet affordability?

 

These questions require figures, policies, timelines and accountability.

 

They cannot be adequately answered by repeatedly pointing to Zimbabwe’s geographical position.

 

Leadership must offer solutions, not excuses

Zimbabwe’s landlocked position is a geographical reality, not an unavoidable sentence to expensive internet.

 

The country has educated engineers, telecommunications specialists, entrepreneurs and institutions capable of helping develop practical solutions.

 

What is required is coordinated leadership, sound regulation, competitive markets, investment and the political willingness to reconsider policies that may be contributing to excessive costs.

 

It would be unfair to suggest that the government alone determines every internet price. Telecommunications companies also have commercial responsibilities, and international connectivity costs remain real.

 

Nevertheless, the government has considerable influence over the conditions under which the industry operates.

 

That influence should be used to make connectivity more affordable.

 

Minister Mavetera should move beyond geographical explanations and present Zimbabweans with a credible, measurable plan to reduce the cost of internet access.

 

The solution will not come from one technology alone. It will require a combination of fibre-optic expansion, satellite connectivity, fair competition, sensible taxation, reliable electricity and effective consumer protection.

 

Zimbabwe does not need to move closer to the ocean to make internet access more affordable. It needs policies that recognise connectivity as essential national infrastructure.

 

Being landlocked may explain some additional costs. It does not excuse every pricing decision, regulatory failure or missed opportunity.

 

The challenge before Minister Mavetera is not to explain why Zimbabwe is landlocked.

 

It is to demonstrate why a landlocked Zimbabwe cannot become a leader in affordable digital connectivity.

 

The country cannot build a digital economy while pricing its citizens out of the digital world.

 

News of The South believes affordable internet access should be treated as a national development priority. Zimbabweans deserve practical solutions, transparent pricing and measurable progress, not explanations that leave the underlying problems unresolved.

0

Comments

comments