Pretoria - The Competition Tribunal yesterday heard how some of South Africa’s major banks embarked on a systematic closure of accounts belonging to Sekunjalo Group companies.
The two-day hearing is being held after Sekunjalo – comprising 36 applicants – made an urgent application seeking interim relief not to have their banking facilities closed, as well as for the reinstatement of those that had been.
Among the respondents in the case are Nedbank, Investec Bank, Sasfin Bank, Absa, First National Bank, Mercantile Bank and Bidvest.
During the first day of the hearing, it was highlighted that companies linked to Sekunjalo had been the subject of negative reporting by the media, a factor previously cited by the banks as one of the reasons they concluded that a relationship with Sekunjalo posed a “reputational risk” to them.
Advocate Vuyani Ngalwana (SC), representing Sekunjalo, implored the Tribunal “to put a stop to the willy-nilly cancellation of productive black businesses by those who control the levers of the economy”.
Ngalwana alluded to the fact that the banks told the Tribunal “that they care not whether or not the stories written in the media about some of the applicants are true or not; they care only that the stories are in the media”.
“Competitors of the Sekunjalo Group in the media and publication space have made effective use of the tool of manipulating the public psyche against the Sekunjalo Group, a phenomenon known as propaganda. This is not some perverse conspiracy theory,” he said.
On the question of collusive practices by the banks, Ngalwana said: “We ask it to send a strong message to these banks that they cannot willy-nilly cancel black businesses and expect it to be business as usual. We ask that this Tribunal does that by temporarily interrupting the banks’ black business to cancel culture exploits.”
Nedbank's legal representative, advocate Alfred Cockrell, SC, denied that Nedbank and other major banks colluded to close down banking facilities of Sekunjalo’s entities.
Cockrell said there was not a shred of evidence to suggest collusion or co-operation, adding that Sekunjalo drew an inference that there must have been some consensus among the banks.
Standard and FirstRand Bank also shared the same sentiment, that there was no co-ordinated approach to deal with Sekunjalo, saying they just shared the same reputational concerns emanating from the relationship with the company.
Ngalwana said the interim relief application should be granted “until the Commission has determined whether or not the banks are guilty as charged”.He said Sekunjalo’s case didn’t hinge on compelling banks to maintain an indefinite relationship with the banks, but to maintain that “relationship until the Commission has completed its investigation on the competition complaint that the applicants have lodged against the banks.
“That investigation could take six months, or less or more. This Tribunal can grant the interim order for a period not exceeding six months from the date of the order, but may on good cause extend the order for another six month period. But the order remains interim.” Ngalwana said.
Pretoria News