Two of MTN Group’s US Anti-Terrorism Act lawsuits are now moving into discovery, the stage where each side can demand documents, evidence and testimony from the other. On September 25, the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York refused MTN’s requests to reconsider, or to allow an immediate appeal of, an earlier decision that let certain claims in Zobay v MTN Group proceed. Zobay and a related case, Long v MTN Group, now go forward together. MTN stresses that the rulings are procedural and “do not constitute a finding of wrongdoing or liability.” It says it is not a culpable participant in the attacks at issue and will keep defending the cases vigorously. The ruling matters for a second reason: it has revived questions in South Africa about how a long-running corporate dispute could touch the country’s already strained relationship with Washington.
The allegations come from American service members and civilians and their families. Reporting describes the Zobay claim as saying MTN aided and abetted terrorist groups behind attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan between 2011 and 2019, partly through its business in Iran, and that MTN paid “protection money” to the Taliban to protect its infrastructure in Afghanistan. MTN denies all of it. MTN has said it faces four such cases in the US, the other two being Cabrera and Chand & Davis, which have had no material developments. One outlet counts five, so the exact number depends on the source. Plaintiff numbers are also reported inconsistently: MyBroadband puts Zobay’s plaintiffs at more than 50 Americans, while BusinessDay refers to families of more than 200 soldiers, probably across several suits. This newsroom has not been able to reconcile them. MTN says discovery gives it its first chance to produce and seek evidence to disprove the claims, because it could not challenge the plaintiffs’ facts at the motion-to-dismiss stage. After discovery, either side may ask for summary judgment, and if no one does, or the court says no, the cases continue towards trial. No trial date has been reported.
Iran is the thread that links the lawsuits to South African politics. MTN holds a 49% stake in Irancell, the Iranian mobile operator, where Iranian state-linked and defence-linked entities hold the majority. MTN says it has no operational control over Irancell and has received no dividends from it since US sanctions were reimposed in 2018. It has tried to leave Iran since 2020, but sanctions block both a sale and the movement of money, and CEO Ralph Mupita has said he wants to exit if sanctions ease. In August 2025 MTN disclosed that a US Department of Justice grand jury was investigating its conduct involving its former Afghanistan business and Irancell. MTN said it was cooperating voluntarily. In its August interim results this year, it booked an impairment related to its Iran operations.
The personal angle is about timing. Cyril Ramaphosa joined the MTN board in October 2001 and chaired the company from 2002 until he stepped down at the May 2013 annual general meeting, after being elected ANC deputy president. That overlaps with part of the period covered by the allegations and with MTN’s Iranian business. MyBroadband reports that some analysts think discovery could hand Washington another pressure point. Simone Heradien, a former president of the Pretoria Diplomatic Association, told the outlet the case could add pressure on South Africa to respond to US demands, including a call to distance itself from Iran. None of the court reporting this newsroom reviewed names Ramaphosa as a defendant or as a subject of the allegations, and no court has made any finding implicating him. At this stage the issue is diplomatic and reputational, not legal, and it rests on analysts’ views rather than on anything in the court record.
It is not the first time MTN’s US exposure has met South African diplomacy. In April 2025, Ramaphosa appointed MTN’s then chairman, Mcebisi Jonas, as his special envoy to the United States, to help repair ties with the Trump administration. The appointment drew criticism because Jonas chaired a company facing US terrorism litigation and had previously criticised Donald Trump. Presidency spokesperson Vincent Magwenya said Ramaphosa had weighed Jonas’s MTN links before appointing him, that MTN’s Iran investment was “no different” from its investments elsewhere, and that Jonas “does not have ties with Iran.”
The practical test comes in the months ahead. Discovery can be slow and much of it happens out of public view, so the first signs may be disputes over documents rather than headlines. Investors, regulators and diplomats will be watching what is demanded, what MTN produces, and whether the grand jury investigation moves alongside the civil cases. Until a court finds otherwise, MTN’s position is that the evidence will clear it.
How a Roadside SIM Registration Scam in Nigeria Can Turn Your NIN Into Someone Else’s Crime
