👨🏿‍🚀TechCabal Daily – ‘Too much Access’

Kenya’s banks have been given two different timelines to raise capital, and the regulatorsare now trying to agree on which one counts. The Treasury (the Finance Ministry) wants to give lenders until 2032 to reach KES 10 billion ($46 million) in core capital, but the Central Bank of Kenya (CBK) wants them to do it by 2029.

What’s happening? John Mbadi, Kenya’s Treasury Cabinet Secretary, and CBK Governor Kamau Thugge are in talks to settle the disagreement, which became public after Mbadi announced an extension in his 2026 Budget speech, in June.

Mbadi’s proposal would scrap the CBK’s annual capital targets and give banks three extra years. The regulator wasn’t having it. It told lenders to stick to the original schedule and ordered banks with less than KES 5 billion ($38 million) in core capital to explain how they would meet the December 2026 target.

Under the CBK’s plan, banks must hold $38 million by December 2026, KES 6 billion ($46 million) in 2027, KES 8 billion ($62 million) in 2028, and KES 10 billion ($77 million) in 2029.

Why it matters: Smaller banks have warned that meeting the higher capital requirements could force them to cut lending to businesses and households, putting them at odds with the government’s push to increase private-sector credit.

As of June 2026, 14 banks had less than the KES 5 billion ($46 million) required by December. Seven had already missed the previous year’s KES 3 billion ($23 million) target. For these lenders, the extra three years Mbadi is proposing could make a big difference.

The bigger question: The CBK wants banks with larger capital buffers, but parliament wants to avoid a process that drives smaller lenders out of the market or limits access to credit. Both have a point. But until Mbadi and Thugge agree on a timeline, banks are left planning for two different deadlines.

In South Africa, MTN helps keep Cell C’s customers connected. Cell C helps banks and retailers become mobile operators without building their own networks. Now MTN wants more of that business for itself. 

What’s happening? In a trading update published on Monday, MTN, Africa’s largest telecom operator, said it failed to agree with Cell C, the South African mobile network operator, on certain terms of their longstanding commercial relationship. MTN didn’t disclose what the disagreements were, but said both companies would work to resolve them under their existing agreement. Cell C confirmed that the deal runs until 2032 and that existing terms remain unchanged, according to local publication TechCentral.

Explain like I’m new here. Unlike MTN and Vodacom, Cell C no longer operates its own radio network. Instead, it relies on infrastructure-sharing agreements with both companies to provide nationwide coverage. Under its arrangement with MTN, Cell C gets access to network infrastructure, while MTN gets access to some of Cell C’s licensed spectrum, the radio frequencies used to carry mobile signals.

Here’s where it gets interesting: Cell C has built a growing business serving mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs), companies such as Capitec Connect that sell mobile services without operating their own networks. In its FY2026 results, Cell C estimated that it hosts 80–85% of South Africa’s MVNO market. Its wholesale revenue grew 20% to R1.76 billion ($107.2 million) in the year to May, supporting 5.71 million MVNO lines.

But MTN wants a bigger slice of that market. It wants to become South Africa’s leading MVNO wholesaler and is introducing new wholesale pricing arrangements to compete for customers.

Between the lines: MTN is both Cell C’s infrastructure partner and a direct competitor for wholesale customers. That creates an uncomfortable relationship between the two operators. Cell C needs access to MTN’s infrastructure to serve its customers, while MTN earns revenue from that arrangement even as it competes for the same business.

Neither company has disclosed the exact reason for the disagreement.

Zoom out: Cell C’s strategy of relying on other operators’ networks has reduced infrastructure development and maintenance costs, letting it focus on acquiring customers and growing its wholesale business. But the model also makes the terms of its network agreements critical to its profitability.

For now, both companies say customers won’t experience service disruptions. But Cell C has to answer questions about how it can protect its fast-growing wholesale business as the company supplying its network competes more aggressively for the customers it serves.