The  Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (Comesa) Competition Commission has commenced investigations into potential violation of its laws by Yamaha Motor Company.

The watchdog said it suspects the company of violating Article 16 of the Comesa competition regulations. Article 16 of the regulations prohibits all agreements which may affect trade between member states and have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition in the common market.

The commission revealed in a statement that it has reason to believe that Yamaha Motors has concluded exclusive distributor agreements or arrangements with affiliates in Africa, which affect trade between member states.  “The Commission will thus assess the conduct of Yamaha Motors to determine its effects in the common market and apply appropriate measures as provided in the regulations,” it said. The Commission will conduct an inquiry to determine whether the alleged conduct has as its object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition in the common market or in a substantial part of it.

Competition regulations

In February this year, the watchdog also launched investigations into alleged anti-competitive conduct by telecommunication firms America Tower Corporation (ATC) and Airtel Africa.

The commission had received a complaint that a deal between the two companies contravened the Article 16 of the competition regulations.

 In 2022, the two firms signed a multi-year, multi-product partnership that would see the Africa-focused telecom provider use the US-based infrastructure provider’s sites in Nigeria, Kenya, Niger, and Uganda to support its network rollout.

However, the reports implied that, according to the ongoing agreement, Airtel assumes the use of some specified ATC sites yearly, while ATC will offer Airtel a cash rebate in return. In essence, ATC will get some money back for patronising ATC. 

 Many viewed this arrangement as a strategic attempt to prevent other telecom operators from accessing these critical infrastructure sites, effectively stifling competition. The firms’ agreement was later approved after the regulator found no foul play.