Minister of Communication, Digital Technology, and Innovation, Samuel Nartey George, has revealed that the debt portfolio for AT currently stands at $200 million.
He said this was discovered after a debt restructuring arrangement.
Speaking to journalists at a press briefing on Wednesday, April 9, 2025 he noted that the company’s financial challenges still persists with AT recording monthly operational losses of GHS20 million.
He told journalists that there is an urgent need for the situation to be addressed, stating that steps are being taken to negotiate haircuts with creditors to ensure AT’s viability.
“…Today after a debt restructuring arrangement, the debt portfolio at AT sits at about $200million, rising every month as the company makes a monthly operating loss of GHS20million.
“The bleeding needs to be thrashed and urgent steps are underway to engage the companies creditors in negotiating haircuts to ensure the company’s viability,” Sam George stated.
The Minister further criticised the previous government’s acquisition of Airtel Tigo, which was later rebranded as AT for a reported purchase price of $1.
He described the decision as “ill-informed and reckless,” because its debt portfolio at the time it was bought was $400 million and lacked enough revenue to cover its overhead costs.
Sam George also pointed out that the core and dealing platforms had reached the end of their lifecycle, with no significant investments made by the former operators of Tigo, in the preceding five years.
“The previous government acquired Airtel Tigo and rebranded it as AT with a reported purchase of $1. Nothing could have been more disingenuous and unpatriotic. When the company was bought its debt portfolio stood at $400million and its revenues could not meet its monthly overheads.
“The core and dealing platforms have reached the end of life and both Bharti and milicom which operated Tigo had failed to make any meaningful investments in both companies over the preceding five years.
“The decision to step in at the time can best be described as ill informed and reckless. It was an abdication of responsibility by the then administration and minister to the best interest of Ghana.”
