MTN has officially spoken out against Turkcell's allegations that the company engaged in illicit activity to obtain a GSM licence in Iran, in 2004, describing the claims as “sensationalist”, “ludicrous”, “fanciful” and “colourful”.
This comes in reaction to charges against MTN by the Istanbul-based cellphone operator and a $4.2 billion lawsuit that it filed in a US court just over two weeks ago. Turkcell has accused MTN of corrupt practices, armament deals and complicity in human rights abuse with regard to its activities in Iran over the past eight years. MTN owns a 49% stake in Iran's second cellphone operator, Irancell.
Yesterday, MTN Group president and CEO Sifiso Dabengwa strongly denied any dubious activity on the SA-based operator's behalf, and said no amount of media hype would stand in the way of the corporation pursuing opportunities to “build on [its] past success”.
“The current media interest in MTN's operations in Iran (through its minority interest in Irancell), particularly the sensationalist allegations made by Turkcell, is naturally of concern.”
Setting the record straight on behalf of the company, Dabengwa said in a written statement that MTN was not the cause of Turkcell “losing 'its' licence in Iran” as the Turkish operator claims. He says Turkcell's “own failures to meet Iranian legal and commercial requirements” caused its exit from the licence process and, consequently, “any suggestion that Turkcell's failure to obtain the licence was as a result of any alleged corrupt or improper practices by MTN is unfounded”.
policy around its armaments and nuclear position is “simply ludicrous”.
With regards to what Dabengwa refers to as “colourful allegations” over Irancell's involvement in human rights abuse, he says civic and human rights are a central focus for MTN, which opposes the abuse of such rights “by any party, including governments”. He says MTN has “clear ethical standards”, which people who do business with MTN are expected to follow.
Dabengwa says the licence and local law in Iran give certain government agencies the power to access subscriber details and intercept telephone lines. “This is not exceptional. As with all telecoms companies, Irancell is bound by these laws and requirements. This would have been the case irrespective of who Irancell's shareholders were: whether MTN or Turkcell.”
Evading the issue?
The Democratic Alliance (DA), which has become involved in the Iranian controversy by way of instigating further investigation by specialised crime and human rights units in SA, says Dabengwa's response to what it terms “serious allegations” is a “fudge” and does not deal directly with the key allegations.
“The MTN Group does not deny, for example, that it made a payment of $400 000 to Iran's former deputy foreign minister, Javid Ghorbanoghli, or that it made a payment of $200 000 to SA's former ambassador to Iran, Yusuf Salojee, in return for their assistance with securing the mobile operating licence in Iran.”
The DA notes that MTN “appears to concede” that the company did in fact provide the Iranian regime with access to MTN-Irancell's subscriber details and telephone lines. “[MTN] seems to turn a blind eye to the fact that the interception of communication in Iran does not pass the 'democratic test'. It's hard to imagine that an independent judge authorises all the interception of communication in Iran.”
The DA is awaiting a response from the Directorate of Priority Crime Investigation (Hawks) and the South African Human Rights Commission regarding its request for investigations into MTN's Iranian dealings.
Share