Former MTN Group CEO Phuthuma Nhleko and former director Irene Charnley have, in their personal capacities, approached the constitutional court to challenge an April supreme court of appeal judgment in the long-running case involving a telecommunications licence in Iran.
The appeals court ruled that the South African courts have jurisdiction to hear a matter regarding allegations of bribery and corruption against MTN and its former executives.
The allegations against MTN and its former executives go back to the licensing of MTN Irancell, in which MTN has a 49% stake, a licence that Turkcell has claimed was awarded irregularly. An independent committee in 2012 exonerated MTN of any wrongdoing, but Turkcell has continued its fight to have the matter heard in local and international legal forums.
“This is the latest attempt by MTN and the other defendants to delay trial,” said Cedric Soule, global counsel for Turkcell, in a statement on Thursday.
“The supreme court of appeal clearly decided that South African courts have jurisdiction in this matter and unequivocally rejected all of the objections raised by MTN, Nhleko and Charnley. We remain confident that when the full evidence is presented at trial, it will demonstrate that MTN engaged in corrupt practices to secure the Iranian licence initially awarded to Turkcell.”
At the time of the ruling, MTN emphasised that the court’s decision was purely on juristic grounds and had no bearing on “the merits of Turkcell’s claims or the allegations made against MTN Group, which have not yet been tested in court”.
According to Turkcell’s statement, the company believes the constitutional court should decline to hear the appeal by MTN and its former executives since the appeal court’s majority judgment “was well reasoned and correctly applied the established legal principles regarding jurisdiction”.
Long-running legal battle
“The supreme court’s decision also represents a significant victory for the principle that South African companies should be held accountable in South Africa for their conduct abroad,” said Soule.
In response to a query from TechCentral, MTN Group said it maintains that Iranian law governs the underlying dispute and that the allegations raised by Turkcell should be adjudicated by the courts in Iran, “which are the appropriate and competent forum on this matter”.
Turkcell first approached the South African courts in November 2013 regarding a licensing process in Iran that took place in 2005. Both Turkcell and a consortium that included MTN were bidders in the tender process, but Turkcell lost out and the licence was granted to the MTN consortium. Turkcell later sued MTN for US$4.2-billion in damages and has accused MTN over the years of paying bribes to secure the licence.
Turkcell claimed it lost out to MTN after the latter paid bribes and other inducements to secure the lucrative stake. It also sought damages in the high court from Nhleko and Charnley, both of whom were intimately involved in the negotiations with the Iranians to secure the Irancell licence. Nhleko and Charnley have both denied the allegations by Turkcell.
MTN in 2012 appointed a committee led by independent South African-born former British jurist Leonard Hoffman, and in 2013 Hoffman concluded that there was no conspiracy between MTN and Iranian officials to sideline Turkcell from the bidding process. The Hoffman report cleared MTN, Nhleko and Charnley of wrongdoing, too.
“After 12 years of procedural delays, Turkcell looks forward to the opportunity to present its evidence in court and seek appropriate redress for the more than $4.2-billion in damages suffered due to MTN’s alleged misconduct,” said Soule. – © 2025 NewsCentral Media
Get breaking news from TechCentral on WhatsApp. Sign up here.
Don’t miss:
MTN vs Turkcell: $4.2bn bribery lawsuit heads to SA’s top court
