South African President Cyril Ramaphosa could face renewed diplomatic pressure over MTN Group’s long-running US terrorism-related lawsuits after two cases against the telecoms company were allowed to proceed to the discovery stage.
Ramaphosa is not a defendant in the cases, but his former role as MTN chairman has drawn attention to the litigation, which concerns the company’s business activities in Iran and Afghanistan during part of the period when he led its board.
The development could add another complication to already strained relations between Pretoria and Washington, particularly over South Africa’s diplomatic and economic ties with Iran.
The main lawsuit, Zobay v MTN Group, was filed in the United States in 2021 by more than 50 American plaintiffs. They allege that MTN’s operations in Iran helped provide support to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and militant groups operating in Iraq.
The plaintiffs have also alleged that MTN paid protection money to militant groups to safeguard its infrastructure in Afghanistan.
MTN has repeatedly denied the allegations and has maintained that it was not responsible for the attacks cited in the litigation.
The latest court rulings are procedural and do not establish that MTN supported terrorism or is liable for the attacks.
Ramaphosa’s former MTN role draws scrutiny
Ramaphosa’s connection to the matter stems from his tenure as MTN chairman between 2002 and May 2013, a period that overlapped with the company’s expansion in Iran.
During that period, MTN secured a position in Iran’s telecommunications market and ultimately acquired a 49% stake in Irancell.
MTN has said it does not exercise operational control over Irancell. The company has also said that it has neither invested additional capital in nor received dividends from the Iranian business since US sanctions were reimposed in 2018.
Nevertheless, the litigation places renewed scrutiny on decisions made during the period when Ramaphosa was chairman, particularly if discovery produces documents or testimony concerning MTN’s activities in Iran or Afghanistan.
US-South Africa tensions add political sensitivity
The cases are unfolding against the backdrop of increasingly complicated relations between Washington and Pretoria, including disagreements over South Africa’s relationship with Iran.
The litigation could therefore become an additional point of diplomatic sensitivity if evidence emerging during discovery raises concerns among US officials or lawmakers.
The issue has already intersected with South African diplomacy.
In April 2025, Ramaphosa appointed then-MTN chairman Mcebisi Jonas as a special envoy to the United States as Pretoria sought to repair relations with the Trump administration.
Jonas’s appointment drew criticism because he was simultaneously chairing MTN while the company faced terrorism-related litigation in the United States. His previous criticism of Donald Trump also became part of the controversy.
In August 2025, MTN disclosed that the US Department of Justice was conducting a grand jury investigation into the company’s conduct relating to its former Afghanistan operations and Irancell. MTN said at the time that it was cooperating voluntarily with the investigation.
Discovery could increase pressure on MTN
The transition to discovery is significant because it allows the parties to seek documents, testimony and other evidence that could shed more light on the allegations.
That could potentially bring greater scrutiny to MTN’s historical operations, relationships and decision-making, although it remains uncertain what evidence will ultimately emerge or whether the litigation will proceed to trial.
Simone Heradien, a former president of the Pretoria Diplomatic Association, told MyBroadband that the litigation could create additional pressure on South Africa as Washington pushes Pretoria to reconsider aspects of its relationship with Iran.
For Ramaphosa, however, the distinction between political exposure and legal liability remains important.
He is not a defendant in the lawsuits, and there is currently no court finding that he personally participated in or supported any alleged wrongdoing.
MTN has said it intends to vigorously defend the cases and expects the evidence to demonstrate that it was not responsible for the attacks cited by the plaintiffs.
The immediate issue for Ramaphosa is therefore less a personal legal threat than the possibility that evidence emerging from the US litigation could create a fresh diplomatic headache for Pretoria.
If the cases eventually reach trial, evidence concerning MTN’s historical operations in Iran and Afghanistan could bring the company—and potentially decisions made during Ramaphosa’s time as chairman—under significantly greater public and political scrutiny.
