Starlink suspended in Senegal
On Tuesday, November 3, 2026, the Supreme Court rejected the appeal filed by the State of Senegal, meaning Starlink's license remains suspended. This marks the second time in two months that the State has lost in this case. To understand what's at stake, one must look at what other operators have paid. In 2007, Sudatel paid $200 million, approximately 90 billion CFA francs, for the license that led to the creation of Expresso, following a tender process. In 2017, Sonatel paid 100 billion CFA francs for the renewal of its license and the allocation of 4G. And for Starlink, we now know they paid only 100 million CFA francs for an ISP license! The recent publication of Starlink's specifications on the ARTP website has revealed this information, which the State had not previously made public. The modest size of this amount raises questions. It's even less than the amounts paid by other Senegalese ISPs, which are small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). It's understandable that the government didn't want to publicize this information, which is difficult to explain! There are also the rules. In Senegal, the specifications for each internet service provider must be published on the ARTP website. This is a legal obligation that was respected by all ISPs, except for Starlink, until Sonatel challenged the awarding process. After the suspension in September, the government published it urgently, then went back to court, presenting this publication as new evidence. The court ruled against it, which is logical, since you can't retroactively regularize a procedure that a judge has already suspended. And by making this urgent correction, the government more or less admitted that the procedure wasn't in order. So, the real issue isn't Starlink. This is a state that demands tens of billions of dollars and extensive procedures from certain operators, while allowing another to enter without publishing either its specifications or the price of its license. Those who paid the hefty price are entitled to wonder which rules actually apply. The Supreme Court will decide the matter in its final ruling, and we will then know whether a license granted in this manner can stand.
Black News 
On Tuesday, November 3, 2026, the Supreme Court rejected the appeal filed by the State of Senegal, meaning Starlink's license remains suspended. This marks the second time in two months that the State has lost in this case.
To understand what's at stake, one must look at what other operators have paid. In 2007, Sudatel paid $200 million, approximately 90 billion CFA francs, for the license that led to the creation of Expresso, following a tender process. In 2017, Sonatel paid 100 billion CFA francs for the renewal of its license and the allocation of 4G. And for Starlink, we now know they paid only 100 million CFA francs for an ISP license! The recent publication of Starlink's specifications on the ARTP website has revealed this information, which the State had not previously made public. The modest size of this amount raises questions. It's even less than the amounts paid by other Senegalese ISPs, which are small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). It's understandable that the government didn't want to publicize this information, which is difficult to explain!
There are also the rules. In Senegal, the specifications for each internet service provider must be published on the ARTP website. This is a legal obligation that was respected by all ISPs, except for Starlink, until Sonatel challenged the awarding process. After the suspension in September, the government published it urgently, then went back to court, presenting this publication as new evidence. The court ruled against it, which is logical, since you can't retroactively regularize a procedure that a judge has already suspended. And by making this urgent correction, the government more or less admitted that the procedure wasn't in order. So, the real issue isn't Starlink. This is a state that demands tens of billions of dollars and extensive procedures from certain operators, while allowing another to enter without publishing either its specifications or the price of its license. Those who paid the hefty price are entitled to wonder which rules actually apply. The Supreme Court will decide the matter in its final ruling, and we will then know whether a license granted in this manner can stand.
