ConCourt Must Decide: Will SA Courts Hold MTN Accountable for Iran Corruption?

The Constitutional Court is weighing a question that cuts to the heart of corporate accountability in post-apartheid South Africa: can our courts hear a R74 billion damages claim alleging that MTN secured its stake in Iran's first private mobile licence through bribery and corruption?

This week, the highest court in the land heard arguments in a case that could reshape how multinational corporations are held to account for their conduct abroad. At stake is not just MTN's reputation, but the very principle of whether South African justice extends to the boardrooms of our corporate giants when they operate in foreign lands.

What is the MTN-Turkcell dispute about?

The dispute stretches back decades. Turkish telecoms operator Turkcell was initially awarded a R31.6 billion deal as part of Iran's first private cellular network project. But in 2005, the Iranian government changed course and signed a new deal with MTN instead. Turkcell now claims damages of approximately R74 billion, alleging that MTN acquired its stake through corrupt means.

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) delivered a landmark judgment against MTN, ruling that South African courts could indeed hear the allegations. MTN appealed, and the matter now sits before the Constitutional Court, with judgment expected on a date yet to be determined.

Why does this case matter for South Africa?

Jane Borman, an attorney with the non-profit organisation Open Secrets, which is a friend of the court in this matter, framed the case in stark terms. She warned that allowing companies to act corruptly overseas sets a dangerous precedent at home.

“This involves state capture of a foreign government. So, it's not our government, but the reality is that if you let companies act corruptly overseas, what would stop them from being corrupt here?”

Borman described this as “the fight before the fight” about principles and the rule of law. The current proceedings concern jurisdiction, not the merits of the allegations themselves. But she stressed that if a South African court finds the Iranian government acted corruptly, the political ramifications would be significant.

“Because of the 'moment in time' with Iran in the global spotlight, and South Africa's relationship with the Middle Eastern country under increased scrutiny, such a ruling would be 'a big deal',” she said.

What is MTN's argument against the hearing?

MTN opposes the case being heard in South Africa on three grounds: “State immunity”, the “foreign actors doctrine”, and the argument that the tender dispute should be resolved in Iran, not here.

Open Secrets takes no position on whether MTN actually acted corruptly. As Borman explained:

“We don't know - we don't have a position on whether or not MTN in fact did act corruptly. We haven't looked at the evidence ... We just say that a South African court must have the opportunity to enquire into whether this happened.”

Her point is simple: the case must be heard, otherwise it sets a dangerous precedent for future corporate accountability cases.

What happens next?

MTN is in the process of withdrawing from the Middle East to focus on Africa, but US sanctions against Iran are complicating matters. The Constitutional Court's judgment will determine whether South African courts can investigate the allegations, and the outcome could have far-reaching implications for how our corporations behave on the continent and beyond.

For a nation still grappling with the legacy of apartheid-era corporate complicity, this case is about more than one company's legal troubles. It is about whether South African justice will stand up for integrity, or whether corporate power will continue to operate above the law.

This article was adapted from reporting by IOL.