One of Ghana’s veteran business journalists, now based in New York, reached out and asked if I have been following the NITA bill debate. Sadly, I hadn’t. Too much going on. He pressed, subtly but firmly, so I did. I appreciate the ambition of the current management at the Ministry. I am sure they want their names in neon above Black Star Square. But there is a serious katanomicodour blowing from the bill they are promoting. They would do well to assemble a group of truly independent tech folks from the ICT chamber, not just a bunch of their friends, listen hard, talk less, and take the advice. If they did, they would gut that manuscript and return to the drawing board. Here is why, based on my quick take on the bill. Bottom line The Ministry of Communications, Digital Technology, & Innovations (MOC) does not merely appear to be proposing to “license IT professionals.” The draft NITA Bill is much bigger. The plan is to convert NITA from a coordinating ICT agency into a broad digital-sector regulator with powers over ICT infrastructure, cloud, SaaS, digital platforms, public-sector technology procurement, professional certification, business premises, mergers, ownership, standards, audits, sanctions, and even the structure of government digital infrastructure. It is a wholesale revamp. No one would have quarrelled with the bill if it had focused on the big problems in the sector: public sector procurement indiscipline and a lack of incentives for R&D and support for local tech innovations. Ghana certainly needs improved standards and practices in digital assurance, interoperability, and accountability for critical systems (already captured in the “critical infrastructure” policy). The katanomics arise when instead of learning from national mistakes and proposing workable solutions, one jumps the process to venture into a whole range of areas where the country absolutely lack policy experience. 1. MOC’s Proposals The draft/consultation bill proposes as follows: A stronger NITA “Authority” The Bill would establish NITA as a regulatory authority for ICT and digital services, with objects including regulation, coordination, promotion, standards, licensing, certification, interoperability, digital innovation, and public-sector ICT personnel management. Mandatory licensing of ICT business activity Section 35 (the bombshell that has sparked so much controversy). It says no person may engage in business or a related activity in the ICT sector unless granted a licence. It expressly includes installation of ICT infrastructure, development or provision of ICT products and services, and activities requiring licensing or certification. Doing any of these without a license could get one jailed, or at best fined. Who is to be licensed? Section 36 lists categories such as public/commercial ICT infrastructure, cloud hosting, SaaS providers, government digital services partnerships, national digital platform operators, data centre operators, and any other category the Authority later determines. Citizen-only ownership qualification Section 37 says a licence applicant must be an adult Ghanaian citizen, or a company/partnership/association/body “wholly owned by a citizen.” Essentially, it would now be illegal to engage remote experts to work on a system deployed in Ghana. Essentially, half the whiz kids in Silicon Valley would have been ineligible to build their genius gizmos had America had a law like this. Certification of ICT professionals Section 46 says a person shall not be appointed as an ICT professional in a public or private institution unless certified by the Authority, and that NITA shall determine the criteria and procedure. (Funnily, this contradicts the definitions section where “certified professional” is confined to the public sector.) Closure, seizure, suspension and enforcement powers NITA could close premises or facilities, seize ICT products/equipment, suspend business, revoke licences, and impose administrative penalties in specified circumstances. M&A and business-structure control Section 49 appears to require NITA approval before sale, transfer, merger, amalgamation, or alteration of the nature of an ICT service provider’s business. There are also some less controversial proposals about setting up a special purpose national e-government vehicle, promoting transparency and interoperability, and preventing vendor lock-in. Let’s focus, however, on the areas of the Bill that have rankled so many ICT professionals and would clearly not have seen the light of the day if the Ministry bosses had done any serious sounding beyond their clique. 2. What do they mean by “ICT professional” anyway? “IT/ICT professional” is not like “nurse,” “electrician,” “lawyer,” “chartered accountant,” or “professional engineer.” Those occupations usually have a more defined body of practice, recognised training path, public-risk rationale, and a reserved act or protected title. “ICT” and “IT” are very loose umbrella terms. International occupational systems do not treat ICT as one unified profession. The International Standard Classification of Occupations classifies jobs by skill level and specialisation, not by one vague “IT professional” identity. Eurostat and O*NET both list many distinct computer and mathematical occupations within that bracket: software developers, network architects, cybersecurity analysts, database administrators, web developers, data scientists, support specialists, QA testers, IT project managers, and many more. Is the government of Ghana going to insist on licensing every single person in Ghana who builds a website, uses Microsoft Power BI to create some charts for a company, or deploys mermaid to craft some flyers for an event organiser? The whole idea is totally ridiculous. A more sensible approach would be to pry open the ICT chest open and only target the most critical functions. Example: Critical Public Digital Infrastructure management (with a clear and rigorous process properly defined as to how any system gets to be elevated to that status to begin with); Financial services cybersecurity auditing; Tier II & III datacenter operations; Public hospital digital health network administration; Public ERP procurement readiness certtification. The bill could then have said that for those functions, licensed professionals are required. The licensing regime would then have been constructed in an industry-led fashion much like we have in leading accounting jurisdictions. Frankly, the civil service is the last place to situate licensing for a dynamic sector like ICT. More importantly, under no circumstances should any government aspire to poke its long nose into stuff like “writing code,” “installing a router,”
