Virtual assets, commonly referred to as crypto assets or digital currencies, are reshaping the global financial landscape. In Africa, where financial inclusion remains a pressing challenge, the rise of virtual assets presents both opportunities and regulatory dilemmas. This article provides a comparative overview of the regulatory frameworks governing virtual assets across East, West and Southern Africa, drawing insights from jurisdictions including South Africa, Kenya, Nigeria, Ghana, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda, Ethiopia and Malawi.

Understanding virtual assets in the African context

Virtual assets are broadly defined as digital representations of value that can be traded or transferred electronically and used for payment or investment purposes. While definitions vary slightly across jurisdictions, most align with the Financial Action Task Force's (FATF) standard. South Africa, for instance, defines crypto assets as digital representations of value not issued by a central bank, capable of being traded or stored electronically and using cryptographic techniques and distributed ledger technology. Kenya’s recently enacted law similarly defines a virtual asset as a digital representation of value that can be digitally traded or transferred and can be used for payment or investment purposes, and does not include digital representations of fiat currencies, securities and other financial assets.

In contrast, countries such as Malawi, Rwanda and Uganda have yet to adopt statutory definitions, relying instead on central bank advisories or working group guidelines.

None of the jurisdictions reviewed recognises virtual assets as legal tender. Central banks across the continent, from the Reserve Bank of Malawi to the Central Bank of Nigeria, have issued public warnings against the use of cryptocurrencies for payments. In Ethiopia, the use of digital currencies is explicitly prohibited, while Uganda’s High Court has affirmed that cryptocurrencies are not legal tender. This uniform stance reflects a cautious approach by regulators, driven by concerns over volatility, fraud and financial stability.

Regulatory frameworks: A patchwork of progress

South Africa leads the continent in formal regulation. Under the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act, 2002 (FAIS Act), crypto asset service providers are required to obtain a financial service provider (FSP) licence and comply with anti-money laundering (AML) obligations under the Financial Intelligence Centre Act, 2001 (FICA).

Nigeria has also made significant strides, with a comprehensive framework that includes the Investment and Securities Act, 2025, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Rules on Digital Assets Issuance, and the National Blockchain Policy, 2023. Virtual asset service providers (VASPs) must be licensed, maintain minimum capital requirements and comply with AML and countering the financing of terrorism (CFT) obligations.

In Ghana, regulation is emerging. The Bank of Ghana has issued draft guidelines and mandated VASP registration by August 2025, bringing them under the AML regime. However, a full licensing framework is still pending. The Bank of Ghana has indicated that it has completed the drafting of the Virtual Assets Providers (VASP) Bill and intends to progress it through processes leading to consideration by Ghana’s Parliament.

East African countries are at varying stages of development. Kenya’s recently enacted Virtual Asset Service Providers Act introduces a licensing regime and regulatory oversight by the Capital Markets Authority and the Central Bank. Rwanda and Uganda are developing frameworks, while Tanzania applies AML and tax rules without a dedicated VASP regime. Ethiopia maintains a prohibitionist stance.

Malawi, included in the extended review, remains unregulated. The Reserve Bank of Malawi has issued public notices cautioning against cryptocurrency use but has not introduced formal legislation.

Licensing and operational requirements

Licensing requirements vary significantly across the region:

• South Africa and Nigeria require formal licences for VASPs, as does Kenya under its recently enacted Virtual Asset Service Providers Act, 2025.
• Ghana currently mandates registration but not licensing.
• Malawi, Rwanda, and Uganda do not require licences, though AML obligations may apply indirectly.
• Tanzania, while still lacking a dedicated VASP licensing regime, has expressly brought virtual-asset activities under its AML/CFT framework. A recent court decision treating crypto transactions as taxable income also signals a gradual move towards the functional recognition of virtual assets, even in the absence of formal licensing provisions.

Physical presence requirements are rare. Nigeria stands out by requiring VASPs to be incorporated and to maintain offices within the country, while Kenya only requires the latter. Other jurisdictions, including South Africa and Uganda, do not mandate local presence.

Minimum financial requirements are prescribed in South Africa and Nigeria. Nigeria’s SEC 2024 Amended Rules on Digital Assets Issuance outline capital thresholds ranging from NGN 100-million to NGN 1-billion, depending on the type of service offered. South Africa requires FSPs to maintain adequate financial resources, but does not specify thresholds. Kenya will also have capital requirements that are to be prescribed by regulators in due course.

Most jurisdictions allow free transferability of ownership in VASPs, although licences themselves are non-transferable. Nigeria requires regulatory approval for changes in control. South Africa’s FSP regime imposes fit-and-proper requirements for directors and significant owners, while Kenya’s recently enacted Virtual Asset Service Providers Act, 2025, imposes fit-and-proper requirements on a director, senior officers or such other person as determined by the relevant regulatory authority.

Local ownership requirements are generally absent, with Nigeria’s incorporation and residency rules being the exception.

AML/CFT compliance is a common thread across regulated jurisdictions. South Africa, Nigeria, Ghana and Uganda classify VASPs as accountable institutions, requiring registration with financial intelligence units and adherence to due diligence, reporting and risk management protocols.

In Malawi and Rwanda, AML obligations may apply indirectly if VASPs engage in financial services. Kenya’s Virtual Asset Service Providers Act, 2025, includes AML provisions, while Tanzania has directly incorporated virtual assets and VASPs into its AML/CFT framework through amendments to the AML Laws and Regulations.

Stablecoins and blockchain regulation

No jurisdiction has enacted standalone legislation for stablecoins. South Africa, Kenya and Nigeria include stablecoins within broader crypto asset definitions. Nigeria’s Investment and Securities Act, 2025, treats stablecoins as securities, subjecting them to SEC oversight.

Blockchain regulation remains limited. Nigeria’s National Blockchain Policy, 2023, provides strategic guidance but lacks legislative force. Other jurisdictions, including South Africa, Ghana and Kenya, have yet to introduce specific blockchain laws.

Africa’s regulatory landscape for virtual assets is evolving rapidly. While South Africa and Nigeria offer mature frameworks, many countries remain in exploratory or transitional phases. The emergence of legislation in Kenya and regulatory signals from Ghana and Rwanda suggests growing momentum.

However, the lack of harmonisation across jurisdictions poses challenges for cross-border innovation and investment. Regional collaboration, through platforms such as the African Union (AU), the Southern African Development Community (SADC) or the Common Market of Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), could facilitate the development of unified standards, promote financial inclusion and support responsible innovation.

As virtual assets continue to gain traction, African regulators face the dual challenge of safeguarding financial stability while enabling technological progress. The road ahead will require agility, cooperation and a shared vision for the continent’s digital future.

For a more detailed analysis and jurisdiction-specific insights, download the full Virtual Assets Regulation in East, West and Southern Africa document here.

The authors who contributed to this publication include:

Webber Wentzel: Lerato Lamola (Partner) and Analisa Ndebele (Senior Associate)

Ritz Attorneys at Law: Lusungu Gondwe (Partner) and Martin Chirwa (Associate)

Mekdes & Associates Law Office: Eskedar Ezezew (Legal Director) and Salem Wondyfraw (Associate)

ALN Kenya – Anjarwalla & Khanna: Sonjal Tejpar (Partner) and Vivian Namisi (Associate)

ALN Rwanda – K-Solutions & Partners: Okello Kasera Patrick and Nandugwa Zackiah (Associates)

Breakthrough Attorneys: Kheri Mbiro (Senior Partner) and Fredy Edward Ng’wenge (Senior Associate)

ALN Uganda – MMAKS Advocates: Fiona Davies Nalwanga (Partner) and Mariam Atim Okello (Associate)

Bentsi-Enchill Letsa & Ankomah: Joel Telfer Jnr (Associate)

Aluko & Oyebode: Funmilayo Otsemobor (Partner), Oluwatamilore Oluwalaiye (Senior Associate) and Esther Yugbovwre (Associate)