By Sipho Tshabalala
The banks’ relentless crusade against Sekunjalo continues to expose their true intentions—an age-old game of power and control wrapped in the false rhetoric of “reputational risk.”
Like a scene from a poorly produced morality play, the banks, under the guise of self-appointed arbiters of integrity, have targeted Sekunjalo based on recommendations from the Mpati Commission of Inquiry.
But let’s not fool ourselves; this isn’t about reputational risk at all. It’s about maintaining the neo-liberal status quo and silencing those who refuse to play by its rules.
In an affidavit responding to Sekunjalo’s review application, Judge Lex Mpati, who chaired the Commission, set the record straight in a move that unravels the flimsy pretexts the banks have been hiding behind.
His words were a searing indictment of the so-called reputational risks invoked by these institutions.
Mpati made it clear that the Commission’s role was purely investigative, not judicial, and its recommendations were non-binding.
This revelation raises a critical question: On what grounds are these banks justifying their actions?
No Negative Findings on Premier Fishing
The case of Premier Fishing is particularly shocking. Judge Mpati was unequivocal in his statement: “No negative findings are made in relation to Premier Fishing.”
Yet, this has not stopped the banks from using the Commission’s report as a tool to justify their actions. Premier Fishing, a company that operates with integrity, has had to deal with banks closing their accounts, simply because it is associated with Sekunjalo.
This act of guilt by association is not just reckless, it is dangerous.
But then again, isn’t this how power structures operate?
When confronted with entities that challenge their dominance, they lash out, weaponizing bureaucracy and public sentiment to disguise their true intentions. The banks, emboldened by their unchecked power, have set out to financially strangle Sekunjalo—destroying livelihoods in the process.
Investigative vs. Judicial Power: The Banks’ Convenient Misinterpretation
Judge Mpati emphasised that the Commission’s recommendations were purely advisory and not meant to carry the weight of a judicial decision. His affidavit states: “The task of investigating is distinct from the task of adjudicating.” The banks have chosen to blur this distinction, conveniently misinterpreting the Commission’s findings as a green light to shut down Sekunjalo’s financial lifelines.
This is not an accident. It’s a deliberate strategy. The Commission, by its very design, was meant to be exploratory. Yet, the banks have twisted its purpose, taking non-binding recommendations and acting as though they are definitive proof of wrongdoing. This conflation of investigation with adjudication reveals the banks’ desperation to justify actions that, at their core, are unjustifiable.
The Convenient Weapon of “Reputational Risk”
What’s truly shocking is that the banks have taken this non-legal, investigative report and used it as a basis to close Sekunjalo’s bank accounts. According to Mpati, the Commission’s findings were never meant to impose legal consequences, yet here we are, watching the banks turn advisory suggestions into verdicts. The term “reputational risk” has become their weapon of choice, used arbitrarily to justify their actions, despite there being no legal foundation.
We know what this is about. This is about shutting down a black-owned conglomerate that dares to disrupt the deeply ingrained neoliberal economic order. They know they cannot attack Sekunjalo head-on, so they hide behind a veil of “reputation,” hoping the public won’t notice the thinly veiled racism behind their actions.
A Racist Legacy at Play
It’s impossible to ignore the racial undertones of these decisions. The same banks that target Sekunjalo for its supposed reputational risk have remained eerily silent when dealing with companies like Steinhoff, EOH, or Tongaat Hulett—entities embroiled in financial scandals and fraud. These white-owned companies have committed serious transgressions, yet their banking services remain intact. The hypocrisy is blinding.
The truth is, these banks have colonial roots. As the saying goes, “a leopard never changes its spots.” From ABSA’s history with Volkskas Bank, Standard Bank, with its roots in British colonialism, FNB was established in 1838 and is now part of Johann Rupert’s investment portfolio, to Nedbank’s founding in Amsterdam. Their actions today seem to echo their discriminatory past.
Conclusion: Exposing the Charade
Judge Mpati’s clarification should have put an end to this charade. His affidavit makes it clear that the Commission never found Sekunjalo guilty of any wrongdoing. Yet, the banks have weaponized commission against Sekunjalo by using reputational risk as a pretext for their deeper, racially motivated agenda. It is a calculated attempt to remove a black-owned business from the South African economy.
Sekunjalo’s battle is not just about one company. It’s about exposing the insidious ways in which power structures manipulate the system to serve their own ends. This is a fight for economic justice, for transparency, and for the truth. The question is: How much longer will we let this charade continue?
* Sipho Tshabalala is an independent writer and analyst.
** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Independent Media or .
Opinion
