Since its entry into Uganda in 1998, MTN has evolved far beyond its original role as a voice and SMS provider. Over the years, it has expanded into mobile money, internet services, cloud computing, device retail, cybersecurity, digital advertising, and value-added services (VAS), transforming itself into a comprehensive digital ecosystem—a virtual wallet, marketplace, and communications hub.

However, MTN’s dominant position has sparked a competition paradox: it is both a market participant and a rule-setter. This tension was brought into focus by a recent High Court ruling involving MTN and VAS Garage, a smaller digital service provider.

The dispute arose when MTN blocked VAS Garage from accessing its subscriber base—effectively barring the company from the VAS market—while continuing to offer its own competing services. Both companies operate in the VAS space, which enhances core telecom offerings by providing content such as entertainment, religious material, and news. Smaller providers like VAS Garage depend on MTN’s infrastructure to reach users, making access essential to their operations.

While the court did not resolve whether MTN’s infrastructure qualifies as an “essential facility” under competition law—a status that would require MTN to provide access to rivals—it did find fault with MTN’s actions under contract law. Key legal questions, such as whether alternative access routes existed for VAS Garage, remain unanswered.

By leveraging its dual role as both service provider and gatekeeper, MTN tilted the playing field in its favor. The court likened the situation to a football match in which MTN expelled its rival mid-game while continuing to play and score—a clear conflict of interest.

This kind of anti-competitive behavior, critics argue, harms consumers by limiting their choices. If VAS Garage offered superior services that customers could no longer access due to MTN’s intervention, then the public ultimately pays the price. The very principle of competition law is to safeguard consumer choice, not restrict it.

The consequences could extend to MTN itself. Rather than competing through innovation, the company risks regulatory backlash by stifling rivals. There are growing calls for structural separation within such conglomerates—a precedent already set when MTN split its mobile money operations from its core telecom business. Continued abuse of its dual role could invite further regulatory interventions.

This issue isn’t unique to MTN. Global tech giants have faced similar scrutiny. Apple, for example, drew criticism for removing competing screen-time apps from its App Store shortly before launching its own version. Legal parallels can also be drawn to the landmark 1983 U.S. case, MCI Communications Corp. v. AT&T, where AT&T was found to have unlawfully denied a rival access to vital telecom infrastructure, violating competition principles.

Dominance in the market is not inherently unlawful. However, how that power is exercised matters. As MTN expands, it must avoid overwhelming smaller players in the digital ecosystem. A healthy digital economy requires diversity, openness, and fair competition—values that risk erosion if dominant firms suppress their rivals.

Uganda’s Competition Act now places significant legal obligations on major players, prohibiting practices like refusal to deal, self-preferencing, and monopolistic leveraging. MTN’s latest venture—’Market by MoMo,’ a digital platform enabling merchants to sell goods online—raises further questions. If MTN offers its own products on the same platform, it must do so under the same rules as its competitors. Failure to maintain that balance could expose it to further legal and regulatory challenges.