Latest news with #SiphoPityana
IOL News
14 hours ago
- Business
- IOL News
Pityana's calls for increased scrutiny of banking regulator's powers
Sipho Pityana said the judgment is a win not just for me, but for the integrity of our financial system and the rule of law in South Africa. Image: Simphiwe Mbokazi/Independent Newspapers BUSINESS leader Sipho Pityana has described the SA Reserve Bank's (Sarb's) Prudential Authority (PA) as a rogue institution that places itself above the law. Pityana recently secured a major victory against the PA when it was found that it had unlawfully blocked his appointment to the Absa board. 'What was the basis for their objection? They never said I was unfit,' Pityana said. 'The Reserve Bank first indicated they had issues with my nomination by suggesting I may not be a 'fit and proper person' — without ever formally asserting that I was implicated in harassment or any misconduct,' Pityana said. 'In fact, in all the court papers, they stated that they never asserted I was unfit or unqualified. They never actually said I wasn't a fit and proper person.' The PA acted without legal justification, relying instead on informal, 'backroom processes' to strong-arm the Absa Board into rejecting Pityana. The PA had firmly defended its legality and conduct amid debates over its role in the appointment of bank executives. Central to its arguments was that it had not acted unlawfully or beyond its powers under the Banks Act. In court filings, the PA stated: 'The Authority always acted lawfully,' affirming that its interactions with banks were in line with regulatory standards. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad loading Regarding the nomination process itself, the PA highlighted its statutory authority to review and potentially object to candidate appointments. It said: 'Section 60(5) of the Banks Act read with Regulation 42(1)(a) of the Regulations and section 60(5)(b) of the Banks Act provide that the notice must reach the Authority at least 30 days before the proposed date of appointment,' and that 'the Authority may object to the proposed appointment by means of a written notice, stating the grounds for objection.' The PA further argued that its oversight included providing early guidance to banks. 'Financial institutions often engage with the Authority in advance of any nomination of directors or senior executives. They seek early guidance regarding any fitness or proprietary concerns,' it said, underlining that these interactions were part of the regulatory process and were intended 'to facilitate compliance with the statutory requirements by banks'. In her judgment, Judge Luleka Flatela underscored that the PA's actions went beyond these prescribed procedures. 'The First Respondent acted unlawfully and in excess of its powers per the Banks Act 94 of 1990 by engaging in an informal process with the Second and Third Respondents in connection with the nomination of the Applicant as Chairperson of the Second and Third Respondents' board of directors, and in particular by notifying the Second and Third Respondents of its objection, alternative intention to object to the Applicant's nomination.' Pityana did not mince words when describing the PA's conduct: 'They knew the process they were following was unlawful. Everything they submitted in court suggested they understood the unlawfulness of their actions but looked for excuses to justify using the informal process.'
IOL News
6 days ago
- Business
- IOL News
Pretoria High Court rules Sarb, PA acted unlawfully in blocking Sipho Pityana's Absa chair appointment
A recent ruling by the Pretoria High Court has upheld Sipho Pityana's challenge against the South African Reserve Bank, raising critical questions about the legitimacy of regulatory practices and corporate governance in South Africa Image: File The Pretoria High Court determined that the South African Reserve Bank (Sarb) and its Prudential Authority (PA) acted outside the bounds of the law in their objections to Sipho Pityana's appointment as chair of Absa Bank in 2021. Pityana sought a declaratory order asserting that Sarb's conduct was unlawful, arguing that their informal interventions breached established legal protocols. According to the legal papers served to the PA, the authority halted his chairmanship bid by conducting an informal process that involved consultation with third parties, including former Absa CEO Maria Ramos, to assess his suitability for the role. The PA's concerns emerged after Absa's succession committee identified Pityana as the sole candidate to succeed Wendy Lucas Bull, who was set to resign in March 2022. In an unexpected move, Absa ultimately appointed Sello Moloko as chairperson instead. This situation escalated as discussions regarding Pityana's appointment took place outside the formal procedures laid out in the Banks Act, raising serious questions about adherence to the guidelines governing banking appointments. Having joined the Absa board in 2019 and elevated to lead independent director by June 2020, Pityana's career faced a turbulent shift following his resignation from AngloGold Ashanti in December 2020 amidst allegations of sexual harassment, which he has adamantly denied. This earlier controversy resurfaced when Absa dismissed him from its board, claiming he breached his duties as a director by filing suit against the PA. In 2021, the Absa Group and Absa Bank Boards removed Pityana from their ranks, stripping him of his position as lead independent director and chair of the remuneration committee. Judge Flatela Luleka, in a compelling judgement, emphasised that there was no credible evidence countering Pityana's claim of being in line for the chairperson role at Absa. 'I conclude that [Pityana] was poised to be nominated for the chairperson position of Absa. There does not appear to be any credible evidence before me to gainsay this position,' Judge Luleka stated. Furthermore, the judge acknowledged that the matter raised significant legal issues of public importance, necessitating the court's adjudication. 'The relief sought by the applicant is justified,' he pronounced. Neither Sarb nor the PA were available for comment following the ruling, and attempts to reach Pityana went unanswered. Pityana's legal struggle, however, extends beyond this recent decision; he is also contesting his removal from the Absa board through separate legal avenues. He contends that the result of his current application could set important precedents for governance and illuminate the relationship between the PA and banking institutions in South Africa. In concluding the matter, the court affirmed its status as one of public significance, with potential implications for future governance structures—a reminder of the tightrope that regulatory bodies must walk in overseeing corporate leadership. This article was originally published in Business Report IOL
IOL News
6 days ago
- Business
- IOL News
Pretoria High Court rules Sarb, PA acted unlawfully in blocking Sipho Pityana's Absa chair appointment
A recent ruling by the Pretoria High Court has upheld Sipho Pityana's challenge against the South African Reserve Bank, raising critical questions about the legitimacy of regulatory practices and corporate governance in South Africa Image: File The Pretoria High Court determined that the South African Reserve Bank (Sarb) and its Prudential Authority (PA) acted outside the bounds of the law in their objections to Sipho Pityana's appointment as chair of Absa Bank in 2021. Pityana sought a declaratory order asserting that Sarb's conduct was unlawful, arguing that their informal interventions breached established legal protocols. According to the legal papers served to the PA, the authority halted his chairmanship bid by conducting an informal process that involved consultation with third parties, including former Absa CEO Maria Ramos, to assess his suitability for the role. The PA's concerns emerged after Absa's succession committee identified Pityana as the sole candidate to succeed Wendy Lucas Bull, who was set to resign in March 2022. In an unexpected move, Absa ultimately appointed Sello Moloko as chairperson instead. This situation escalated as discussions regarding Pityana's appointment took place outside the formal procedures laid out in the Banks Act, raising serious questions about adherence to the guidelines governing banking appointments. Having joined the Absa board in 2019 and elevated to lead independent director by June 2020, Pityana's career faced a turbulent shift following his resignation from AngloGold Ashanti in December 2020 amidst allegations of sexual harassment, which he has adamantly denied. This earlier controversy resurfaced when Absa dismissed him from its board, claiming he breached his duties as a director by filing suit against the PA. In 2021, the Absa Group and Absa Bank Boards removed Pityana from their ranks, stripping him of his position as lead independent director and chair of the remuneration committee. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad loading Judge Flatela Luleka, in a compelling judgement, emphasised that there was no credible evidence countering Pityana's claim of being in line for the chairperson role at Absa. 'I conclude that [Pityana] was poised to be nominated for the chairperson position of Absa. There does not appear to be any credible evidence before me to gainsay this position,' Judge Luleka stated. Furthermore, the judge acknowledged that the matter raised significant legal issues of public importance, necessitating the court's adjudication. 'The relief sought by the applicant is justified,' he pronounced. Neither Sarb nor the PA were available for comment following the ruling, and attempts to reach Pityana went unanswered. Pityana's legal struggle, however, extends beyond this recent decision; he is also contesting his removal from the Absa board through separate legal avenues. He contends that the result of his current application could set important precedents for governance and illuminate the relationship between the PA and banking institutions in South Africa. In concluding the matter, the court affirmed its status as one of public significance, with potential implications for future governance structures—a reminder of the tightrope that regulatory bodies must walk in overseeing corporate leadership. This article was originally published in Business Report IOL
