By Gillian Schutte
RECENT findings within the protracted dispute over the Sekunjalo Group’s banking accounts have peeled again the layers of propagandistic obfuscation that when shielded Nedbank’s conduct from nearer scrutiny.
But quite than prompting the long-overdue re-evaluation that these revelations warrant, the dominant media narrative—formed by News24 and led by Karyn Maughan—continues to color Dr Iqbal Survé and the Sekunjalo Group in a malicious gentle.
For years, Maughan, seen by critics as News24’s “murderer journalist”, has orchestrated a relentless marketing campaign to discredit Survé and his enterprises, insinuating “guilt” (in each headlines and content material) with out presenting compelling proof.
Now, at the same time as substantial new info emerges and the Info Communication Expertise Union (ICTU) builds a sturdy counter-case, News24’s protection stays firmly aligned with Nedbank’s storyline. The result’s a manufactured public discourse that strategically downplays what look like profoundly anti-competitive, racially skewed practices—actions that stand in direct opposition to South Africa’s constitutionally mandated imaginative and prescient of financial transformation.
The backdrop: A historical past of litigation and shifting contexts
The origins of this dispute may be traced again to the Mpati Fee’s 2020 suggestion for a forensic investigation into the Public Funding Company’s dealings with Sekunjalo. Following that suggestion, a number of banks, together with Nedbank, abruptly closed Sekunjalo’s accounts.
Survé’s companies, with a authorized group headed by advocate Vuyani Ngalwana, challenged these closures via varied authorized avenues—from the Competitors Tribunal to larger courts. Though preliminary makes an attempt largely faltered and the Competitors Enchantment Courtroom (CAC) discovered no direct proof of collusion on the time, subsequent occasions demand a recent take a look at whether or not these judgments stay pertinent.
But Maughan and News24 stay fixated on the previous narrative. Relatively than acknowledging that new proof may considerably alter authorized interpretations, their protection closely leans on the stale notion that Survé’s camp perpetually performs a shedding hand.
On this method, they successfully sidestep any significant engagement with the novel findings that solid doubt on Nedbank’s supposedly unassailable place. At a time when critical questions come up concerning the financial institution’s motives and strategies, News24’s reporting denies the general public the great evaluation wanted to totally perceive the evolving stakes.
ICTU’s counterpoint: A case of financial marginalisation and structural injustice
ICTU’s allegations strike on the core of what’s at stake: the integrity of South Africa’s monetary system and the promise of inclusive financial progress. The union contends that Nedbank’s shifting explanations—initially referencing regulatory considerations linked to AYO Expertise Options, later pivoting to obscure “popularity administration”—lay naked a strategic choice to exclude a distinguished black-owned conglomerate from {the marketplace}.
Such a transfer, if confirmed, can’t be dismissed as a mere enterprise prerogative. It factors to systemic patterns of exclusion that undermine constitutional imperatives and legislative frameworks designed to foster transformation, assist black financial empowerment, and dismantle inherited financial inequalities.
Maughan’s News24 protection underplays the human toll of those account closures by marginalising ICTU’s perspective. Jobs misplaced, livelihoods disrupted, and thwarted entrepreneurial ambitions all represent the tangible hurt that ICTU contends outcomes from intentionally exclusionary ways.
Though News24 acknowledges that authorized battles are ongoing, it neglects to convey the broader social and financial repercussions of Nedbank’s actions. In a rustic nonetheless contending with the enduring legacy of apartheid, the gravity of those allegations shouldn’t be downplayed or softened via selective, one-sided reporting.
Competitors Fee’s prima facie findings: A possible sea change
The Competitors Fee’s latest prima facie findings—that a number of banks, together with Nedbank, “might have” engaged in prohibited concerted practices—mark a big turning level.
These revelations problem Nedbank’s longstanding declare of independence and lift the likelihood that collusive behaviour, whether or not specific or tacit, performed a job in sidelining Sekunjalo. Such a situation wouldn’t solely contravene competitors legislation but in addition strike on the coronary heart of a good and functioning market.
But quite than seizing this second to re-examine assumptions, Maughan’s reportage treats the Fee’s findings as an inconvenient footnote. There’s minimal exploration of how Sekunjalo’s authorized group may leverage this new info or why it may immediate judges and regulators to revisit earlier conclusions.
The complexity, nuance, and potential authorized significance of those findings are lowered to a different hurdle for Survé’s aspect, quite than a real problem to Nedbank’s narrative and the credibility of those that have defended it.
Why Nedbank could also be legally weak
If “popularity administration” is certainly code for safeguarding entrenched pursuits towards a distinguished black-owned conglomerate like Sekunjalo—one that’s already well-established and increasing its market affect—then Nedbank’s stance could also be greater than ethically questionable: it may very well be unlawful.
Below South African competitors legislation, specific “smoking-gun” conspiracies aren’t required to show wrongdoing: constant patterns of exclusion, parallel behaviour, and tacit understandings can all quantity to anti-competitive conduct. Recognising these nuances is crucial to appreciating the gravity of the allegations and the extent of the financial institution’s potential authorized vulnerability.
On this gentle, News24’s editorial stance turns into grossly problematic. The very absence of rigorous interrogation of the implications of the Fee’s findings or devoting equitable protection to ICTU’s meticulous critique, the outlet’s reporting strategically obstructs a full appreciation of the seriousness of those claims.
This overriding of significant info ensures that readers stay oblivious to the intricate authorized requirements and ideas at stake, in addition to the profound socio-economic harm that anti-competitive behaviours can inflict on the nation’s developmental objectives.
Public curiosity and parliamentary oversight
Parliament’s choice to look at arbitrary account closures presents a strong reminder that these will not be abstruse authorized disputes however issues of public concern. Legislative oversight may expose the true extent of Nedbank’s methods and make clear whether or not the financial institution’s actions align with South Africa’s overarching goals of inclusive, equitable progress.
Larger transparency can also illuminate how each uncritical and blatantly skewed media protection can facilitate patterns of exclusion by failing to query dominant narratives.
Notably News24’s protection once more sidesteps the transformative potential of parliamentary scrutiny. Relatively than exhibiting how this political course of may empower stakeholders like ICTU or reframe Sekunjalo’s battle when it comes to public accountability, the reporting maintains a narrower lens, conserving readers centered on the already established storyline quite than the chances for significant systemic change.
In gentle of those developments, one reality stands out: whereas Maughan’s newest article might feign a extra measured, “impartial” tone—probably out of concern that such conduct may now place each her and News24 on the flawed aspect of the legislation—the underlying editorial stance stays essentially unchanged.
Nedbank’s narrative nonetheless monopolises the highlight, whereas ICTU’s condemnation and essential new proof are pushed into the shadows, underemphasised, and successfully stripped of their significance.
Such a deliberate framing can’t be dismissed as mere bias; the sustained selectivity and persistence evident in News24’s protection quantity to aiding and abetting a calculated, orchestrated marketing campaign aimed toward crippling competitors and waging a systemic warfare towards Sekunjalo, and by extension, Unbiased Media/IOL.
As new proof emerges and the decision for real accountability intensifies, Nedbank’s ethical and authorized footing will probably crumble additional. The general public deserves a media panorama that exposes corruption quite than camouflages it—one which refuses to be an confederate in perpetuating financial injustice.
Till News24 abandons its selective framing and ceases to protect Nedbank’s narrative from scrutiny, South Africans will stay disadvantaged of the complete reality. Solely by demanding sincere reporting and rejecting handy distortions can the nation transfer nearer to the equitable, aggressive market that its legal guidelines and structure demand.
As new proof emerges and the decision for real accountability intensifies, Nedbank’s ethical and authorized footing will probably erode even additional. The general public deserves a media atmosphere that exposes anti-competitive corruption quite than obscures it—one unwilling to turn out to be an confederate to entrenching financial injustice. Till News24 abandons its selective framing and stops shielding Nedbank’s narrative from important examination, South Africans will stay disadvantaged of the complete reality.
* Gillian Schutte is a author, filmmaker, and social justice activist. She holds a BA diploma in African Politics from UKZN and an MA in Inventive Writing from Wits.
