Introduction
In the early 2000s, Iran sought to license its second GSM network. Turkish telecom giant Turkcell initially emerged victorious in the tender. However, South Africa’s MTN, having placed second, ultimately took control of the license by launching Irancell in 2005 with a 49 percent stake. What followed would transform into a multi‑billion‑dollar legal confrontation traversing continents, culminating in complex jurisdictional rulings and searing allegations of corruption.
For more: https://voiceafricadaily.com/
The Allegations Unfold
By 2012, Turkcell—along with its subsidiary, East Asian Consortium (EAC)—accused MTN of orchestrating a concealed campaign to derail its Iranian bid. They asserted that MTN used sham consulting contracts, secret cash payments, and political leverage to sway Iranian and South African officials. According to those claims, MTN disguised payments through shell companies like Aristo Oil, covertly directed monthly sums (e.g., USD 15,000) to Iranian figures, and funneled nearly ZAR 1.4 million to South African ambassador Yusuf Saloojee, hinting at political motivations tied to Iran’s diplomatic relations.
MTN denied all wrongdoing. It insisted that their South African appellate processes had exonerated them. Indeed, an internal review led by a committee under Lord Hoffmann described the allegations as “fabric of lies, distortions and inventions” and firmly rejected claims of illicit conduct Reddit+12Vanguard News+12Datacenter Dynamics+12Datacenter Dynamics+2BusinessTech+2ITWeb+2Fast Company+1Datacenter Dynamics+1.
U.S. Lawsuit: Ambition Meets Jurisdictional Limits
In 2012, Turkcell filed a US‑based lawsuit seeking over USD 4.2 billion in damages. Their legal theory rested partly on the Alien Tort Statute. But, by May 2013, they largely withdrew the case after the US Supreme Court clarified that American courts lacked jurisdiction over a fight involving two foreign companies over foreign activity BusinessTech+1Vanguard News+1.
Emergence in South Africa’s High Court
Shifting venues, Turkcell and EAC filed in South Africa in 2013, targeting MTN and high‑rank officials like former CEO Phuthuma Nhleko and Irene Charnley Fast Company+2BusinessTech+2Wikipedia+2. The case lingered in procedural limbo until November 2020, when Turkcell exited the proceeding, leaving EAC as the sole claimant ITWeb+12ITWeb+12BusinessTech+12. In November 2022, South Africa’s Gauteng High Court dismissed EAC’s suit on the ground that jurisdiction lay solely with Iranian courts Fast Company+6BusinessTech+6Datacenter Dynamics+6. MTN celebrated: it had no provisions for the litigation, and the matter was closed—or so it appeared .
Dramatic Reversal by the Supreme Court of Appeal
In April 2025, the legal pendulum swung. South Africa’s Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) overturned the High Court decision, ruling that South African courts did have jurisdiction. It cited MTN’s local headquarters and the fact that allegations of wrongdoing—such as planning and decision-making—occurred in South Africa Engineering News+3Fast Company+3ITWeb+3. The SCA clarified its judgment did not validate the bribery claims themselves, only that due legal process could continue within South Africa Vanguard News+4Fast Company+4TechCentral+4.
Responding to the SCA’s decision, Turkcell (via EAC) welcomed the ruling as a triumph for accountability: it allowed their evidence to be heard on South African soil, under rules that the conduct took place within MTN’s home jurisdiction Fast Company+2Engineering News+2politicsweb.co.za+2. MTN announced an intent to challenge the decision at the Constitutional Court, asserting that Iranian law and jurisdiction should prevail .
Constitutional Court Showdown
As of June 2025, the Constitutional Court—South Africa’s final court of appeal—received MTN’s application for leave to appeal. EAC strongly opposed, citing April’s SCA ruling as a landmark principle. A decision is expected later in 2025 .
The outcome will settle whether EAC can pursue full discovery, depositions, and trial based on bribery evidence—including secret payments and ambassadorial involvement. If leave is denied, the existing SCA provisions stand; if granted, delays are likely followed by further appeals or referrals to the High Court.
Evidence at Stake
Turkcell’s core evidence includes sworn testimony from former MTN personnel—most notably Christian Kilowan—claiming impropriety in awarding the Irancell stake, shrouded consulting payments, and intergovernmental deals tied to defense procurement and support at the IAEA . They also submitted documentation of directed payments to Iranian officials via third-party contractors.
MTN’s defense rests on the Hoffmann‑commissioned review, which found Turkcell’s claims to be hallucinatory. They also maintain that MTN complied fully with Iranian regulations, particularly around shareholding caps, and rejected all impropriety. They emphasize that no actual payments were traced in official banking systems, and the High Court once found no payments to Saloojee or others Fast Company+2BusinessTech+2politicsweb.co.za+2Fast Company+7Datacenter Dynamics+7Vanguard News+7.
Personal Legal Repercussions
While EAC continues the civil suit, criminal investigations in South Africa are ongoing. Former ambassador Yusuf Saloojee was questioned by the Hawks anti-corruption unit in relation to the allegations Fast Company+3Datacenter Dynamics+3BusinessTech+3. No charges have been brought to date. Meanwhile, neither Nhleko nor Charnley has faced criminal scrutiny tied to these allegations, though their reputations remain under cloud.
Jurisdictional Ripple Effects
The case’s most profound fallout may be precedent. If EAC succeeds, South Africa could assert jurisdiction over foreign misconduct orchestrated by domestic firms—even if the alleged damage occurs abroad. That poses a challenge to doctrines like Foreign State Immunity and foreign sovereign immunity. Commentators have noted that a ruling in favor of Turkcell could open floodgates to foreign litigants suing South African companies over international bribery BusinessTech+1Wikipedia+1Reddit.
What Happens Next?
In the coming months, South Africans await the ConCourt’s face-off. If leave to appeal is granted, a multi-year legal process will unfold, encompassing discovery, witness examinations—including depositions of former MTN executives—and eventual trial. A successful EAC claim could spur a USD 4.2 billion damages award (plus interest), potentially destabilizing MTN’s financial outlook—especially given its earlier decision not to provide for the claim .
Conversely, if MTN’s appeal holds firm and jurisdiction is dismissed, the suit may revert to the High Court or end entirely. The civil court battle will likely proceed in parallel with any criminal inquiries if the Hawks pursue further steps.
Global and Corporate Governance Implications
MTN’s showdown with Turkcell spotlights a global reckoning in anti‑corruption enforcement. Beyond the ongoing litigation, the existence of a multi-billion‑dollar claim casts attention on corporate governance mechanisms—especially internal investigations. Critics have argued that MTN’s Hoffmann‑commissioned review lacked transparency and independence, though MTN continues to stand by it.
If the courts allow the bribery claims to be fully aired, MTN may face reputational fallout, undermining investor confidence and inviting scrutiny in other jurisdictions, including Iran, Turkey, and possibly the U.S. The case revives memories of other major telecom sanctions—like Ericsson’s U.S. settlement—and could energize future anti‑bribery litigation globally.
Conclusion
The telecoms war between MTN and Turkcell represents a high-stakes collision of corporate reputation, international legality, and jurisdictional strategy. What began as a license dispute in Tehran has evolved into a $4.2 billion courtroom odyssey stretching from Washington to Pretoria. With key legal choices ahead—including South Africa’s Constitutional Court—this saga is poised to define the boundaries of cross-border accountability and corporate conduct. Whether MTN’s denials withstand scrutiny or Turkcell’s allegations gain judicial traction, the outcome promises to reshape anti‑corruption jurisprudence for years ahead.
External Links for Further Reading
- BusinessTech: “After 10 years, MTN says its $4.2 billion battle… is over”BusinessTech
- Fast Company (via FastCompany.co.za): “Supreme Court Allows Turkcell’s $4.2 bln claim…”Fast Company
- ITWeb: “SCA rules Turkcell’s bribery case against MTN can be heard in SA”Fast Company+3ITWeb+3co.za+3
- Politicsweb: “MTN ConCourt appeal in $4.2bn bribery case opposed”co.za
- ITWeb: “Court dismisses Turkcell’s R73bn lawsuit against MTN”Fast Company+2ITWeb+2ITWeb+
The post by:
