Summary

  • The 2026 LTA draft would require advance sharing steps for new passive infrastructure and could block retirement while sharing remains technically and economically viable.
  • Liberian law already requires co-location under defined conditions; the draft’s larger step is to extend access rules to an asset’s exit, while leaving upkeep and liability to be resolved.

Retirement is where the rule bites

The Liberia Telecommunications Authority (LTA) has put forward a draft that treats deployment, sharing and decommissioning as one infrastructure lifecycle. Its sharpest consequence appears when an operator wants to remove a tower, duct or fibre route. The provider would assess whether another licensee could use or take over the asset. If sharing is technically feasible and economically viable, the draft says the LTA should not approve retirement unless every potential user declines.

That goes beyond an invitation to share. Access rules set terms of use; an exit rule also affects when an owner may stop maintenance, redeploy capital or release a site. It could preserve useful capacity and avoid duplicate construction. It could also strand an asset if the final text does not assign inspection, power, repair, upgrade, safety, damage and remediation costs—or set a release date.

The law already has a sharing baseline

The Telecommunications Act 2007 already requires co-location on existing facilities where it is technically and economically feasible and needs no significant additional construction. It lists towers, conduits, poles and underground facilities. The requester compensates the owner by agreement or by an LTA determination; disputes can use the statutory process. The 2009 Interconnection Regulations also include access to physical infrastructure. Sharing is therefore not a new legal concept in Liberia.

The 2026 draft would make the process more specific and extend it across an asset’s life. Before finalizing a new shareable passive facility, an operator would publish its proposal at least 15 calendar days ahead. Other providers would have 20 working days to express interest, and the design would account for reasonable anticipated needs. The draft also says an operator need not build or modify new infrastructure solely to meet a sharing request.

The sequence is visible—publish, receive interest, adjust, negotiate and record—but the tests must be repeatable. Technical feasibility includes structural capacity, safety, service quality, maintenance access and secure traffic separation for active sharing. Economic viability refers to cost-oriented charges, reasonable return, lower investment or operating costs, durable maintenance and competition. Without a common method, the same site could receive inconsistent decisions.

Continuity needs a cost rule

An operator would file a decommissioning plan at least 90 days before removal; the LTA would have 30 days to approve or reject it. The plan would assess coverage and customers, with environmental and safety measures. The draft adds 60 days’ public notice for service changes and alternatives for affected customers; the LTA could require conditions, including transfer, if continuity is threatened.

The safeguard is understandable: removing a shared duct or site could cut off another provider. But continuity cannot mean indefinite delay. If a potential user gets the benefit without a defined contribution to inspection, electricity, repair, upgrades or remediation, the owner carries costs it no longer controls. Blocking the retirement of unsafe or uneconomic equipment could also harm service and investment.

The consultation should settle evidence and responsibility: what proves feasibility; who pays for reserved but idle capacity; who maintains shared areas; how quickly the LTA decides; how an operator appeals; and when an unclaimed asset may leave service. A facility that exists is not automatically safe or serviceable.

Consultation is input, not delegated authority

The LTA says its 9 October meeting in Paynesville included mobile operators, ISPs and other licensees, and calls the draft an initial proposal for review. It also names coordination with public works, electricity, environment and aviation bodies. A public procurement record lists an expert-review process for draft regulations, but its status was “pending evaluation” when checked; that is not proof the review was completed.

ITU guidance supports reducing duplication, coordinating permits and maintaining an infrastructure register. It is context, not evidence of local enforcement capacity. Heng Lu’s Note 73 offers a limited governance lens: a consultation allows voices without necessarily transferring decision rights. The LTA still owns the final decision. The test is whether submissions visibly change the text and clarify who decides, pays and may exit. Legitimacy depends on turning participation into an accountable, workable process.

Sources: LTA draft; LTA consultation; Telecommunications Act 2007; LTA Interconnection Regulations 2009; PPCC expert-review procurement record; ITU GSR-24 paper; Heng Lu, Note 73 (editorial lens only).