The Competition Tribunal yesterday (29 October 2024) prohibited Vodacom’s proposed R14-billion investment into Maziv, the fibre holding company of Vumatel and Dark Fibre Africa (DFA).
Maziv has responded that it is disappointed by the outcome but respects the Tribunal’s process.
It has issued a statement reading: “We will await the reasons for the prohibition in order to consider our options and remain committed to driving innovation and economic growth through the power of connectivity.”
Vodacom has been more vocal about its disappointment, stating that the proposed transaction would have assisted Maziv in growing its fibre footprint into lower income areas.
It adds that, during the Competition Tribunal proceedings which concluded last month, the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition (DTIC) described the transaction as having “substantial positive public interest effects”.
The merger parties had committed to several initiatives, including:
- Investing at least R10-billion over a five-year period, predominantly in low-income areas;
- Passing at least 1-million new homes in lower income areas over a five-year period;
- Creating up to 10 000 new jobs;
- Establishing a R300-million enterprise and supplier development (ESD) fund to prioritise SMME development;
- Providing high speed Internet to over 600 adjacent schools and police stations at no cost; and
- Vodacom investing up to R14-billion into South Africa through the transaction.
Shameel Joosub, CEO of Vodacom Group, comments: “I am deeply surprised and disappointed by the tribunal’s decision. South Africa desperately needs additional significant investment, especially in digital infrastructure in lower income areas.
“Our investment of up to R14-billion would have changed millions of lives and created thousands of jobs. This comes after the concerns of our competitors, involved in the Competition Hearings process, and the DTIC were comprehensively addressed through remedies and commitments by the parties.”
Vodacom states that it will await the tribunal’s detailed reasons for prohibiting the transaction before considering all options, which may include an appeal in the Competition Appeal Court.