No more top jobs until I clear my name, says Pityana
Businessman Sipho Pityana says he has turned down requests to join company boards as he first wants to clear his name in legal disputes with the South African Reserve Bank and Absa.
This week Pityana said in an interview: “I have had a number of people inviting me to consider [joining boards] and I have taken a view that this [court action] is what I must focus on. It’s going to take quite a bit of time to sort all of that out. This matter is important and I think it casts a huge aspersion on me and it’s important that I get it cleared.”
He said the allegations against him have not affected his businesses or other board memberships.
Pityana, who is chair of JSE-listed property group Redefine and sits on the boards of unlisted companies in which his company, Izingwe, has shares, did not disclose which boards he had been invited to join.
In October, Pityana took the Prudential Authority to court, saying it had interfered through an informal process, and contrary to the processes outlined in the Banks Act, in his nomination for the position of Absa chair. This resulted in Absa firing him from the board. In December he filed a lawsuit against Absa, seeking reinstatement as a director or an award, which was not quantified, as “just and equitable compensation”.
In answering affidavits, both the Prudential Authority and Absa denied Pityana’s allegations.
At the centre of the decision by the bank not to nominate him for the top job were revelations of a sexual harassment complaint against him when he was AngloGold Ashanti’s chair.
In the interview, Pityana said corporations must not demand that the government, the public and society respect the rule of law while they do not. Pityana, who has accused Absa of firing him as punishment for taking the Prudential Authority to court, said what makes him determined to fight this matter is that during a conversation with the Absa board, when he said “the law and the constitution afford me the rights to do what I do, it’s not dereliction, a colleague said to me these rights of yours, you can enjoy them elsewhere but not here”.
“That was a chilling statement ... It seems an attitude prevails, perhaps not [only] at Absa but elsewhere in other corporates, that the rights in the constitution, you can enjoy them elsewhere but not in the corporate world.
“I imagine if that’s the attitude that prevails in the boardroom how is it elsewhere? That made the fight worthwhile. No corporation must be above the law.”
Pityana said he was aware that his unprecedented court action against the Prudential Authority and Absa might in the long run cost him opportunities but he believes “there is always a price to be paid for taking a position. Taking a principled position in life sometimes comes at a price.”
In its response to Pityana challenging his dismissal, Absa said the review application by Pityana was irregular and noncompliant with the rules. Pityana said in his response that the rule of court on which he relied, rule 53, is a practical procedural tool that, among other things, enables an applicant for review to access all the information necessary for a proper framing of its review grounds, facilitating a full ventilation of the relevant issues.
He said rule 53 is designed to come to the aid of an applicant whose review grounds are dependent on information that is exclusively in the possession or under the control of the decision-maker whose decision is under review.
“The rule thus levels the playing fields between the parties and allows the courts to exercise their constitutionally entrenched review jurisdiction, which would be wholly undermined were the decision-maker not required to furnish the full record of its decision,” he said.
Two weeks ago, Pityana asked the court to compel Absa to disclose the records of its decision to fire
him.
The documents include minutes of meetings by the board and its subcommittees. Absa has not yet filed responding papers on this matter.
“Without access to the requested documents, on which Absa has heavily relied, both the court and I are deprived of vital documents, prejudicing my ability to reply meaningfully to the allegations in the answering affidavit,” he said.
The Reserve Bank declined to comment this week, saying its view on the dispute with Pityana remains the same as what it articulated in its answering affidavit. Pityana is yet to file his responses to Absa’s and the Reserve Bank’s answering affidavits.
Absa said; “We will reserve comment on these proceedings until the high court has considered them and given judgment.”
Court dates have not been set. Pityana said he believes there has not been sufficient light shone on how banks, in particular the Reserve Bank, carry out their activities and whether this is within the framework of the law.
He said this is “an expensive exercise, and putting yourself out there and creating a perception of being a troublemaker, I guess I have that following me all the time”.