New Update On MTN’s US Terrorism Court Case

MTN’s long-running legal battle in the United States has entered a potentially significant new phase, as the company now prepares to confront the allegations against it through the evidence-gathering process of litigation.

On September 25, 2026, US District Judge Carol Bagley Amon denied MTN’s requests for reconsideration and for an immediate appeal in the Zobay v. MTN Group Limited and related Long cases. The decisions do not determine whether MTN is liable, nor do they establish the truth of the allegations brought against the company. Instead, they mean the litigation can move forward into discovery — the stage where both sides formally exchange documents, evidence and other information relevant to the claims.

That shift matters because discovery will give MTN an opportunity to challenge the factual accusations through the evidence produced in the cases.

At the centre of the litigation are claims brought under the US Anti-Terrorism Act. The cases currently include Zobay, Long, Cabrera, and Chand & Davis, with plaintiffs alleging that MTN’s historical business activities in Afghanistan and Iran somehow contributed to harm suffered by US personnel.

The allegations are serious.

In Afghanistan, plaintiffs allege that MTN paid protection money or bribes to the Taliban to safeguard its telecommunications infrastructure, including transmission towers. According to the claims, those payments ultimately provided financial support to insurgent groups responsible for attacks that harmed US personnel.

The Iran-related allegations take a different route. Plaintiffs point to MTN’s 49% ownership interest in Irancell and allege that the investment provided economic benefits to entities connected to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, commonly known as the IRGC.

But allegations are not findings of fact, and that distinction is particularly important as the cases move forward.

MTN has strongly denied liability and rejected the suggestion that it was a culpable participant in attacks against US personnel. The company has also stressed that the recent procedural decisions should not be interpreted as a determination that the allegations are true or that MTN has been found legally responsible for any harm.

Instead, MTN says the forthcoming discovery process will provide an opportunity to test the claims against the underlying evidence. The company has indicated that it intends to defend itself vigorously and maintains that the evidence will support its position.

Adding another layer of complexity is a separate investigation by the US Department of Justice. MTN is cooperating with a grand jury criminal investigation concerning its historical conduct in Afghanistan and Iran. That investigation is separate from the civil litigation, meaning the company is dealing with parallel legal scrutiny arising from some of the same historical activities.

For MTN, the next stage could therefore be especially consequential. Discovery can bring internal documents, communications, financial records and other evidence into the litigation, potentially giving both plaintiffs and the company a much clearer picture of the facts underlying the competing claims.

For the plaintiffs, it represents an opportunity to pursue evidence supporting their allegations. For MTN, it represents the opportunity the company has been emphasizing: a formal process through which it can challenge the accusations and present evidence in its defence.

The September 25 ruling therefore should not be mistaken for the end of the story — or for a ruling that MTN has been found liable. It is, rather, another step in a legal process that is now moving toward a closer examination of the underlying facts.

What happens next will depend heavily on what the discovery process uncovers, how the parties interpret and contest that evidence, and how the courts ultimately assess the claims.

For now, the central question remains unanswered: what does the evidence actually show about MTN’s conduct in Afghanistan and Iran, and whether that conduct meets the legal standards required for liability under US law?

That is the question the next phase of this litigation will begin to address.