Absa saga should be reviewed
A LOT of things have been said at variance, confusing ordinary people not to follow the discourse on why Absa is liable for the loss sustained by the Reserve Bank as a consequence of the flawed assistance to Bankorp.
The public protector was not certain about the enforceability of the remedial action on the Reserve Bank. The about-turn seems to suggest that the protector fell short of finding the Reserve Bank’s private shareholders and Absa complicit in the wrongdoing.
What remains problematic, though, is the “continuing secrecy with which the assistance was covered” and the continuation of assistance to Absa, including its lack of care to avert the default by Bankorp before the acquisition, and disclosing it in the public interest after the acquisition.
It is reasonable to assume that Absa overlooked the significance of the bailout in terms of the interest charged on the loan.
If this is anything to go by, Absa is technically liable.
It thus follows that a review of the report by Judge Dennis Davies’s panel of experts would be legally practicable, including analysing the investment policy conceptualised by Sanlam.
The tide may possibly turn against Sanlam and prove that the demutualisation scheme was contrived out of insider trading to benefit policyholders using the ill-gotten gains of Bankorp. Madame public protector, put a review to the test! Ekurhuleni