Mobile Money Reversals: COMESA’s Decision and Its Implications for Operator Accountability

The COMESA Competition Commission (CCC) recently closed a high-profile case involving a failed reversal of a cross-border Airtel Money transfer between the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Zambia.

The complainant, Patrick Hembi, had erroneously transferred USD 250, which Airtel initially failed to recover despite clear contractual obligations. The CCC ruled that while the reversal terms in Airtel’s customer agreement were not inherently unconscionable, Airtel’s failure to assist amounted to potentially unconscionable conduct under Article 28(1) of the COMESA Competition Regulations. The funds were eventually refunded after CCC’s intervention, and the case has been seen as a signal that regional regulators are willing to hold operators accountable when consumers suffer financial harm due to inaction.

For telecommunications providers offering mobile money services, this development is especially relevant given the growing integration of these platforms into cross-border financial flows.

According to the Tanzania Communications Regulatory Authority (TCRA) Communications Statistics for the quarter ending June 2025, mobile money subscriptions increased by 2% from 66.5 million accounts in the quarter ending March 2025 to 68.1 million in June 2025.

Vodacom Tanzania’s M-Pesa maintains market leadership with 41.2%, followed by Mixx by Yas at 30.4% and Airtel Money at 17.2%. Given this landscape of widespread money usage, reversal disputes are likely to become more frequent if not properly managed by mobile wallet operators.

Source: The Tanzania Communication Regulatory Authority (TCRA) Communication Statistics for the quarter ending June 2025.

Unlike its neighbour Kenya, Tanzania’s Cybercrimes Act, 2015, though comprehensive, does not explicitly cover the withholding of electronic payments or funds sent in error.

Tanzania’s Penal Code, on the other hand, could offer recourse under several provisions:

• Section 302 – Obtaining Money by False Pretence: Specifically addresses obtaining money with the intent to defraud. Maximum penalty: Seven years imprisonment.

• Section 311 – Receiving Property Stolen or Unlawfully Obtained: Outlaws receiving or keeping money or property when knowing it is stolen or unlawfully acquired. Maximum penalty: 10 years imprisonment.

These sections provide a comprehensive framework for prosecuting the misappropriation of funds mistakenly sent. However, there is no specific statute in Tanzania criminalising the withholding of money sent by error.

Mobile Money Operators’ Approach to Reversals

Mobile money operators lack the means to handle cases like Hembi’s. The industry approach to mobile money reversals relies on the principle of finality, which states that once a transaction is completed, it cannot be reversed. This ensures transactional certainty and minimises systemic risks that could occur if reversals were easily granted.

This structure is reinforced by a liability waiver, which places the burden of loss on the sender once the funds have been withdrawn or spent.

Although this industry approach to mobile money reversals is legally justifiable and consistent with operational realities, recent regulatory interpretations from the CCC indicate that operators’ failure to assist consumers in recovering incorrectly transferred funds, regardless of their terms, may constitute unconscionable conduct.

The Bigger Picture: Business as Usual Is No Longer Enough

The long-term impact of failing to assist customers who have sent money erroneously can be extensive. There is a risk of regulatory scrutiny, even though no national recourse is guaranteed; scrutiny could escalate to regional regulators, such as the East African Community Competition Authority or the COMESA Competition Commission. 

This also heightens reputational damage from media coverage and increases litigation risk through class action suits or consumer petitions. Courts are likely to support consumer protection, in line with existing jurisprudence, thereby underlining the need for effective reversal and dispute-resolution mechanisms.

Some industry players have already put mechanisms in place for handling reversals. Vodacom Tanzania’s M-Pesa, for example, allows consumers to request reversals for transactions made in error via USSD codes, the M-Pesa app, or customer care channels. Likewise, Tigo Pesa recently introduced a dedicated mobile app feature that enables users to report mistaken transactions and request reversals. 

Although these measures are commendable, recent jurisprudence from the COMESA Competition Commission suggests that mobile money operators must go further than current mechanisms, especially for reversals involving cross-border or inter-system transactions. This involves creating dedicated escalation pathways, supported by specialised teams for managing cross-border and interbank reversals, as well as increasing consumer awareness.

In the long term, telecommunications firms could also look into regional agreements under COMESA or EAC frameworks to handle cross-border reversals more effectively.

The Airtel/CCC case sets a precedent showing regulators are willing to look beyond contractual terms to safeguard consumers. The message is clear: not assisting customers, even when reversals are at their discretion, may be considered unconscionable by regulatory bodies. Improving reversal processes will be vital for protecting operators against regulatory, legal, and reputational risks.