By Gillian Schutte
RECENT findings in the protracted dispute over the Sekunjalo Group’s banking accounts have peeled back the layers of propagandistic obfuscation that once shielded Nedbank’s conduct from closer scrutiny.
Yet rather than prompting the long-overdue re-evaluation that these revelations warrant, the dominant media narrative—shaped by News24 and led by Karyn Maughan—continues to paint Dr Iqbal Survé and the Sekunjalo Group in a malicious light.
For years, Maughan, viewed by critics as News24’s “assassin journalist”, has orchestrated a relentless campaign to discredit Survé and his enterprises, insinuating “guilt” (in both headlines and content) without presenting compelling evidence.
Now, even as substantial new information emerges and the Information Communication Technology Union (ICTU) builds a robust counter-case, News24’s coverage remains firmly aligned with Nedbank’s storyline. The result is a manufactured public discourse that strategically downplays what appear to be profoundly anti-competitive, racially skewed practices—actions that stand in direct opposition to South Africa’s constitutionally mandated vision of economic transformation.
The backdrop: A history of litigation and shifting contexts
The origins of this dispute can be traced back to the Mpati Commission’s 2020 recommendation for a forensic investigation into the Public Investment Corporation’s dealings with Sekunjalo. Following that recommendation, multiple banks, including Nedbank, abruptly closed Sekunjalo’s accounts.
Survé’s businesses, with a legal team headed by advocate Vuyani Ngalwana, challenged these closures through various legal avenues—from the Competition Tribunal to higher courts. Although initial attempts largely faltered and the Competition Appeal Court (CAC) found no direct evidence of collusion at the time, subsequent events demand a fresh look at whether those judgments remain pertinent.
Yet Maughan and News24 remain fixated on the old narrative. Rather than acknowledging that new evidence could significantly alter legal interpretations, their coverage heavily leans on the stale notion that Survé’s camp perpetually plays a losing hand.
In this way, they effectively sidestep any meaningful engagement with the novel findings that cast doubt on Nedbank’s supposedly unassailable position. At a time when serious questions arise about the bank’s motives and methods, News24’s reporting denies the public the comprehensive analysis needed to fully understand the evolving stakes.
ICTU’s counterpoint: A case of economic marginalisation and structural injustice
ICTU’s allegations strike at the core of what is at stake: the integrity of South Africa’s financial system and the promise of inclusive economic growth. The union contends that Nedbank’s shifting explanations—initially referencing regulatory concerns linked to AYO Technology Solutions, later pivoting to vague “reputation management”—lay bare a strategic decision to exclude a prominent black-owned conglomerate from the marketplace.
Such a move, if proven, cannot be dismissed as a mere business prerogative. It points to systemic patterns of exclusion that undermine constitutional imperatives and legislative frameworks designed to foster transformation, support black economic empowerment, and dismantle inherited economic inequalities.
Maughan’s News24 coverage underplays the human toll of these account closures by marginalising ICTU’s perspective. Jobs lost, livelihoods disrupted, and thwarted entrepreneurial ambitions all constitute the tangible harm that ICTU contends results from deliberately exclusionary tactics.
Although News24 acknowledges that legal battles are ongoing, it neglects to convey the broader social and economic repercussions of Nedbank’s actions. In a country still contending with the enduring legacy of apartheid, the gravity of these allegations should not be downplayed or softened through selective, one-sided reporting.
Competition Commission’s prima facie findings: A potential sea change
The Competition Commission’s recent prima facie findings—that multiple banks, including Nedbank, “may have” engaged in prohibited concerted practices—mark a significant turning point.
These revelations challenge Nedbank’s longstanding claim of independence and raise the possibility that collusive behaviour, whether explicit or tacit, played a role in sidelining Sekunjalo. Such a scenario would not only contravene competition law but also strike at the heart of a fair and functioning market.
Yet rather than seizing this moment to re-examine assumptions, Maughan’s reportage treats the Commission’s findings as an inconvenient footnote. There is minimal exploration of how Sekunjalo’s legal team might leverage this new information or why it could prompt judges and regulators to revisit earlier conclusions.
The complexity, nuance, and potential legal significance of these findings are reduced to another hurdle for Survé’s side, rather than a genuine challenge to Nedbank’s narrative and the credibility of those who have defended it.
Why Nedbank may be legally vulnerable
If “reputation management” is indeed code for safeguarding entrenched interests against a prominent black-owned conglomerate like Sekunjalo—one that is already well-established and expanding its market influence—then Nedbank’s stance may be more than ethically questionable: it could be illegal.
Under South African competition law, explicit “smoking-gun” conspiracies aren’t required to prove wrongdoing: consistent patterns of exclusion, parallel behaviour, and tacit understandings can all amount to anti-competitive conduct. Recognising these nuances is imperative to appreciating the gravity of the allegations and the extent of the bank’s potential legal vulnerability.
In this light, News24’s editorial stance becomes grossly problematic. The very absence of rigorous interrogation of the implications of the Commission’s findings or devoting equitable coverage to ICTU’s meticulous critique, the outlet’s reporting strategically obstructs a full appreciation of the seriousness of these claims.
This overriding of vital information ensures that readers remain oblivious to the intricate legal standards and principles at stake, as well as the profound socio-economic damage that anti-competitive behaviours can inflict on the nation’s developmental goals.
Public interest and parliamentary oversight
Parliament’s decision to examine arbitrary account closures offers a powerful reminder that these are not abstruse legal disputes but matters of public concern. Legislative oversight could expose the true extent of Nedbank’s strategies and clarify whether the bank’s actions align with South Africa’s overarching aims of inclusive, equitable growth.
Greater transparency may also illuminate how both uncritical and blatantly skewed media coverage can facilitate patterns of exclusion by failing to question dominant narratives.
Notably News24’s coverage again sidesteps the transformative potential of parliamentary scrutiny. Rather than showing how this political process might empower stakeholders like ICTU or reframe Sekunjalo’s struggle in terms of public accountability, the reporting maintains a narrower lens, keeping readers focused on the already established storyline rather than the possibilities for meaningful systemic change.
In light of these developments, one fact stands out: while Maughan’s latest article may feign a more measured, “neutral” tone—likely out of concern that such conduct could now place both her and News24 on the wrong side of the law—the underlying editorial stance remains fundamentally unchanged.
Nedbank’s narrative still monopolises the spotlight, while ICTU’s condemnation and crucial new evidence are pushed into the shadows, underemphasised, and effectively stripped of their significance.
Such a deliberate framing cannot be dismissed as mere bias; the sustained selectivity and persistence evident in News24’s coverage amount to aiding and abetting a calculated, orchestrated campaign aimed at crippling competition and waging a systemic war against Sekunjalo, and by extension, Independent Media/IOL.
As new evidence emerges and the call for genuine accountability intensifies, Nedbank’s moral and legal footing will likely crumble further. The public deserves a media landscape that exposes corruption rather than camouflages it—one that refuses to be an accomplice in perpetuating economic injustice.
Until News24 abandons its selective framing and ceases to shield Nedbank’s narrative from scrutiny, South Africans will remain deprived of the full truth. Only by demanding honest reporting and rejecting convenient distortions can the nation move closer to the equitable, competitive marketplace that its laws and constitution demand.
As new evidence emerges and the call for genuine accountability intensifies, Nedbank’s moral and legal footing will likely erode even further. The public deserves a media environment that exposes anti-competitive corruption rather than obscures it—one unwilling to become an accomplice to entrenching economic injustice. Until News24 abandons its selective framing and stops shielding Nedbank’s narrative from critical examination, South Africans will remain deprived of the full truth.
* Gillian Schutte is a writer, filmmaker, and social justice activist. She holds a BA degree in African Politics from UKZN and an MA in Creative Writing from Wits.