It is curious how falsehoods find fertile ground when cloaked in fragmented truths.
Recent articles questioning the appointment of Mcebisi Jonas, MTN non-executive chair, as special envoy to the US are a textbook example. Under the guise of journalistic investigation, they deliver deeply flawed narratives riddled with innuendo, selective reporting and a thinly veiled disdain for South Africa’s sovereignty on the global stage.
At the heart of these pieces lies an effort to malign Jonas by linking him — without a shred of credible causality — to a web of unrelated geopolitical controversies involving MTN’s legacy operations in Iran. The insinuation is that Jonas, by virtue of chairing MTN’s board, somehow inherits its alleged transgressions and disqualifies himself from any meaningful diplomatic engagement with the US. Such logic is not only intellectually lazy but dangerously misleading.
The articles remind us — needlessly — that MTN retains a 49% stake in Irancell, a venture that has existed since 2005, long before Jonas assumed a formal role at the company. They omit the fact that MTN has already exited several conflict-ridden markets in the Middle East, and that its Iran investment has weathered multiple political cycles, both in the US and Iran, without attracting sanctions or opprobrium.
The claim that Jonas’s association with MTN somehow jeopardises diplomatic relations is tenuous at best and malicious at worst.
Moreover, the high court in South Africa dismissed the long-running Turkcell case against MTN in 2022, citing a lack of merit. To dredge up a matter that has been legally resolved, and attempt to conflate it with Jonas’s diplomatic suitability, amounts to grasping at straws.
These articles also make the bizarre leap of suggesting that Jonas’s past critical remarks about President Donald Trump render him unsuitable for the role. Let us be clear: criticism of a political figure, even one as polarising as Trump, is neither unpatriotic nor diplomatically disqualifying. Jonas, like any citizen in a free democracy, has the right to express political opinions. To dredge this up as an indictment reveals more about the ideological postures of the commentators than the subject himself.
Even more disturbing is the implicit suggestion that South Africa should calibrate its foreign policy to appease Western asset managers
Even more disturbing is the implicit suggestion that South Africa should calibrate its foreign policy to appease Western asset managers, lest we provoke their ire and jeopardise investment inflows. This reasoning is not only neocolonial in tone, but profoundly disrespectful of South Africa’s sovereign agency. Foreign investors, while essential stakeholders, do not have veto power over our diplomatic appointments.
Indeed, the selective moralising is astonishing. If anything, Jonas’s appointment represents a nuanced, assertive approach to foreign engagement — one that acknowledges the realities of global power dynamics while affirming South Africa’s right to self-determination.
We should be far more concerned about the chilling effect such media hit pieces have on the willingness of ethical, competent South Africans to serve in public office. Jonas is no political lightweight. His principled resignation from the government in the face of state capture, his service on various oversight bodies and his leadership at MTN all speak of integrity and vision. That he is being targeted by opportunistic editorials masquerading as financial journalism is a travesty.
One is left to wonder whether Jonas and MTN are collateral damage in a broader geopolitical contest. Could it be that South Africa’s strategic positioning in the Great Lakes region, particularly its mining ventures, has drawn the attention of powerful global actors, including those with ties to Wall Street, who are now seeking more pliable interlocutors in Washington? Perhaps what is at play is a preference for a figure more amenable to entrenched corporate interests — ideally someone blue-eyed.
South Africa’s global posture must be informed by principle, strategic interest and a firm belief in our capacity to shape international discourse — not by the fickle opinions of foreign fund managers, corporate raiders or the editorial whims of business desks with ideological axes to grind.
As we navigate an increasingly multipolar world, our diplomacy must be anchored in clarity, courage and credibility. Jonas has all three. That some find his appointment threatening is not a reflection of his unsuitability, but of their own discomfort with a South Africa that is no longer content to play junior partner in global affairs.
• Khaas is founder and chair of Public Interest South Africa, a civil society organisation committed to the rule of law, ethical governance, transparency and social justice.
For opinion and analysis consideration, email Opinions@timeslive.co.za
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.