Table of Contents
Key Points
- Turkcell continues its legal battle against MTN, seeking R75 billion ($4 billion) in damages over alleged bribery in securing an Iranian license.
- Turkcell appeals a 2022 court ruling that South African courts lack jurisdiction, arguing that the case should be heard locally.
- MTN denies all allegations, citing the Hoffmann Committee’s findings, which cleared it of any wrongdoing in the Iran license deal.
Turkcell, a leading telecommunications company, will return to court next week to continue its long-running legal battle against South Africa’s MTN Group led by Zimbabwean exec Ralph Mupita.
The case involves allegations that MTN engaged in bribery and corruption to secure a telecoms license in Iran in 2005. Turkcell claims that MTN unlawfully obtained the license by paying bribes and other inducements, and seeks at least R75 billion ($4 billion) in damages.
Legal battle continues
The Supreme Court of Appeal in Bloemfontein will hear Turkcell’s appeal on Monday and Tuesday. Turkcell argues that a 2022 decision by the high court in Gauteng, which stated that South African courts lack jurisdiction over the case, was incorrect.
This ruling was a setback for Turkcell, but the company continues to push forward. MTN considered the judgment a victory and believed it marked the end of the dispute.
Turkcell’s lawyer, Cedric Soule, insists that the lower court made a mistake. He argues that South African courts should hear the case because it involves South African entities and individuals.
“The merits of the case have never been ruled on,” Soule emphasized. “We want the court to examine the evidence and make a fair decision.”
Allegations of bribery and corruption
Turkcell first filed the case in South Africa in November 2013 over the licensing process in Iran. Turkcell alleges that MTN paid bribes to secure a 49 percent stake in Irancell, the consortium awarded the GSM license.
The company also seeks damages from former MTN Group CEO Phuthuma Nhleko and former director Irene Charnley, who were involved in the negotiations. Both Nhleko and Charnley have denied the accusations.
This case carries high stakes for both Turkcell and MTN. Turkcell believes that MTN interfered with its contractual rights and unjustly removed it from the licensing process. The company also insists that the case should be heard in South Africa, where it expects a fair trial, unlike in Iran, where the judiciary lacks independence from the state. Soule emphasized that Turkcell’s allegations involve state interests, making a fair hearing in Iran unlikely.
MTN’s defense and previous findings
MTN denies all allegations, citing the findings of the Hoffmann Committee. In 2012, MTN appointed this committee, led by former British jurist Leonard Hoffmann, to investigate Turkcell’s claims.
The committee concluded in 2013 that there was no conspiracy between MTN and Iranian officials and described Turkcell’s allegations as “a fabric of lies, distortions, and inventions.”
The Hoffmann report cleared MTN, Nhleko, and Charnley, finding no evidence of improper payments or promises to secure the license.
After international arbitration efforts failed, Turkcell approached the South African courts. A change in U.S. legislation had affected the jurisdiction of a U.S. court it initially sought for relief.
Turkcell’s U.S. case alleged that MTN conspired with Iranian officials to remove Turkcell from the consortium. It accused MTN of using its influence with the South African government to help Iran procure defense equipment and support its nuclear program.
