Why NCC’s ban on unapproved phones risks falling into an enforcement trap

The Nigerian Communications Commission’s (NCC) move to block unapproved phones, routers, tablets, and POS machines, categorised as SIM-enabled devices, is a major initiative to curb fake devices and reduce the use of cloned phones in kidnappings and other fraudulent activities.

As the commission moves to improve network security measures, the move was a major development to ensure that all SIM-enabled devices are registered and verified. With this, the International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI) information of the devices is submitted to the appropriate authorities for verification before sale and distribution.

Many Nigerian policies follow a familiar trend of failing during the implementation stage. Likewise, the NCC’s SIM-enabled device registration faces the risk of falling into a trap many other African countries have fallen into.

Four African countries, Tanzania, Uganda, Kenya and Ghana, have previously introduced policies aimed at blocking unapproved phone devices but faced enforcement issues owing to market rejection and intense pressure from the public.

Nigeria might also be heading into this enforcement trap. After the NCC sent warnings to Nigerians possessing unregistered phone types that their devices will be disconnected from local cellular networks within 30 days, the Association of Mobile Phones and Allied Products Traders of Nigeria (AMPAT) wants the commission to suspend the policy for 120 days. They claimed not to be informed prior to implementation and need ample time for consultations with stakeholders in the industry.

In another separate case, phone traders have raised concerns that importers and dealers will pass verification costs directly to end-users. This comes after the NCC introduced administrative validation fees of about ₦670 per IMEI for standard or feature phones and nearly ₦4,000 for high-end smartphones.

When the costs are eventually passed down to Nigerians, the NCC might face pressure that will put the policy through an enforcement trap test.

Also Read: Nigerian telecoms suffer 44,678 fibre cuts in 9 months, NCC data shows.

Unapproved phones and the enforcement trap in Africa

During their enforcement campaigns, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, and Ghana fell into some structural pitfalls which forced the governments to either delay or entirely pause the policy. Though ironic, they reflect how the cost of public outcry and pressure groups’ actions can outweigh the benefits of policy crackdowns on mobile phones.

Tanzania

On June 16, 2026, the Tanzania Communications Regulatory Authority (TCRA) introduced its major crackdown on unapproved and counterfeit mobile phones and enforced a ban that disconnected over 600,000 fake devices from the country’s telecom networks.

As in the Nigerian case, Tanzania initiated the shutdown to combat cybercrime, protect mobile payment security, and safeguard consumer health against high radiation levels and substandard electronic materials. The rule made altering or forging IMEI illegal, carrying heavy penalties of up to 10 years in prison, a $15,000 fine, or both.

While Tanzania was one of the earliest in Africa to introduce this policy, there was commercial tension between achieving rigid compliance and maintaining network service growth as telcos suffered notable losses in active subscribers following massive cutoffs.

Despite heavy legal penalties, black-market traders adapted by using software to clone or overwrite invalid IMEI numbers with valid ones copied from legitimate phones, allowing fake devices to bypass network filters undetected. With hurdles and countermoves, enforcement became passive later on.

Kenya

Kenya’s first crackdown on unapproved phones was initiated in 2012 when it carried out a large-scale switch-off of thousands of handsets lacking authentic IMEI numbers.

The latest was on February 10, 2026, when the Communications Authority of Kenya (CA) banned 21 unapproved phone brands such as Tinsik, Realfone, Fonrox, and others over safety, health, and electromagnetic radiation concerns. The following month, the CA implemented a directive blocking the import and sale of mobile phones and tablets that do not feature USB Type-C charging ports.

Communications Authority of Kenya

Following these moves, Kenya fell into an enforcement trap driven by institutional and legal pushbacks.

In 2012, telcos that feared a massive drop in active subscribers and revenue, and civil rights groups, sued the government. The legal gridlock lasted for nearly half a decade and froze enforcement while unapproved and smuggled phones continued to flood the market.

Kenya’s enforcement trap was defined by trying to implement a high-tech solution before establishing a consensus on data privacy laws. The new enforcement drive (in February) is its latest attempt to revisit its plans of wiping out unapproved devices.

Ghana

In its own policy, Ghana faced implementation challenges before and after introducing the enforcement rule.

Ghana first introduced plans to clamp down on unapproved mobile phones between 2019 and 2020. The crackdown was delayed and later launched in July 2026. However, it faced issues integrating the Central Equipment Identity Register (CEIR) with the national registry owing to weaknesses in verifying subscriber data against the National Identification Authority (NIA) database.

Samuel Nartey George. (Image Credit: Prime News)

During the period of delays, authorities reported that multiple SIM cards and unapproved devices were successfully registered using fake or unverified profiles, which forced a new plan of real-time biometric verification.

In September 2026, after the enforcement, there was public outcry regarding a rule that air travellers could bring a maximum of two mobile phones into the country before being heavily taxed as a commercial import. After facing severe public outcry from travellers and the diaspora, the Ghana Revenue Authority (GRA) was forced to issue clarifications, stating that carrying more than two phones would not automatically trigger duties.

Uganda

Uganda faced a more dramatic situation, as its enforcement plan was met with public outcry and a lack of legal framework.

In September 2012, the Uganda Communication Commission (UCC) set a target date (July 1, 2013) to disable counterfeit phones lacking IMEI numbers. However, the enforcement was repeatedly deferred after pushback from phone traders.

In 2018, the UCC announced a fresh enforcement and confiscation exercise targeting substandard devices and illegal dealers. This was backed by the Centralised Equipment Identification Register, passed by Parliament in March 2019, which gives the UCC the legal basis to operate a Central Equipment Identification Registry (CEIR).

After this, Uganda saw that millions of rural citizens lacked national ID cards and forcing the switch-off of unapproved phones meant cutting off a massive portion of the population from mobile money, which would have crippled small businesses. The UCC was forced to offer multiple extensions over a multi-year period because total enforcement meant economic suicide.

Ugandan Communications Commission (UCC) Executive Director, Mr Nyombi Thembo

In August 2022, the UCC re-launched phase two of its anti-counterfeit campaign (Simu Klear), focusing on a 6-month public awareness and sensitisation drive before moving toward device disconnection.

Also Read: $0.17/GB in Nigeria, $0.86 in Congo: Lessons from how much mobile data costs in 5 African countries.

In all four markets, the enforcement trap reflects how mobile phones in sub-Saharan Africa are not luxury items but are the primary tool for financial inclusion, improvements in agriculture, and daily survival. Regulators are faced with either creating a political issues by shutting down people’s only access to the economy or withholding enforcement.

For Nigerians, the NCC must expect that a strict 30-day window will face some constraints. But phasing the enforcement by targeting bulk commercial importers first, rather than individual end-users all at once, can help mitigate public pushback. It must also maintain the status quo of clear boundaries regarding data access.