The Court dismissed Sekunjalo’s appeal to prevent Nedbank from closing the accounts.
In what has been categorised as a sad day in South Africa’s young democracy, the black-owned Sekunjalo Group has expressed disappointment at the Constitutional Court’s decision to refuse to hear its appeal case against banking giant Nedbank.
The company had sought to prevent Nedbank from closing its banking accounts. However, the Concourt deemed the application not worth their consideration.
The group maintains that its case addressed critical issues surrounding fair and equitable access to banking services for all South Africans.
“We will not relent in this fight and will consult with our stakeholders to determine the way forward. Sekunjalo will now request the Concourt to revisit their decision.”
The company said the Concourt decision could be at odds with the essential principles of equality and right to trade, and in the case of its media business, including Independent Media, the closure of banking accounts was an attack on media freedom.
“The South African Constitution and Bill of Rights – which Sekunjalo fully respects – guarantee the right to trade, media freedom, and protection against discrimination.
“As a group, we are the first corporation to challenge this form of bullying and political machination by apartheid-era oligarchs and political elites.
“To defend our inalienable right to trade, we initiated legal proceedings against the banks to ensure our accounts remain open. While the main cases are still pending in the Equality and High Courts, we successfully interdicted the banks in the interim. Multiple judgments from the Western Cape High Court have been critical of the banks’ conduct, as has the Competition Tribunal.
“Sekunjalo remains confident that the main cases in the Equality and High Courts (still to be heard) will be successful, resulting in significant claims for damages against the banks. However, this is little consolation to the thousands of Sekunjalo Group employees who now face potential retrenchment because of the Concourt’s decision.”
Cape Times