Are the country’s major banks taking instruction from SA’s privileged elite?

CLAIMS that some powerful members of South Africa’s governing party are in bed with the country’s banks cannot go ignored, considering there has been no effort made to create a state bank, despite widespread complaints about the behaviour of the mainstream banks.

Just two years ago, President Cyril Ramaphosa expressed support for a legislative amendment to create a state-owned bank and break the monopoly of the big four commercial banks in South Africa.

“We need to move away from the monopoly of just four banks in our country and create more banks so there is more access to funding,” Ramaphosa said in May 2018, during his quarterly question-and-answer session in Parliament.

“In fact, we should really be looking at creating more banks in our economy … that should make money available to citizens of our country.”

Ramaphosa said the banking sector in South Africa was well regulated, but needed to be “properly transformed”.

However, two years after this gallant proclamation by the president of the governing party, and the country, nothing has been done.

All the financial power remains firmly in the grasp of the mainstream commercial banks, who have made it extremely difficult for previously disadvantaged South Africans to access capital. In fact, the banks have gone as far as charging the South African majority, who are predominantly poor, higher interest rates than those proffered to the country’s rich minority.

The lack of access to capital for aspiring businesspeople in South Africa, has contributed to the country’s rising unemployment rate, which is at an all-time high.

Now, who is to blame for this except for the Ramaphosa-led administration? A state bank could have been part of a solution to the unemployment problem.

However, because the governing party has not taken any visible steps to making this a reality, one cannot help but start to believe the claims that the party is in bed with these banks.

What are the odds of the banks suddenly viewing the Sekunjalo Group as a reputational risk just after Independent Media – in which Sekunjalo has an interest – exposes CR17 statements?

What are the chances of an awardwinning businessperson suddenly being seen as a reputational risk by the banks after the media group of which he is chairperson exposes PPE corruption linked to Ramaphosa’s spokesperson?

The minute the wrongdoings of the golden boy of South Africa’s privileged elite are publicly aired, the banks, which are clearly a law unto themselves, react with unwarranted and capricious ire, putting thousands of jobs at risk.

The media’s role is to speak truth to power; however, because Independent Media does not subscribe to mainstream media’s propaganda, the privileged elite appear to do all they can to shut down what is an alternative voice and one that resonates with many people.

How many people lose jobs in the process is none of the banks’ or the elite’s business. Profits come first.

We understand that job creation is not part of the banks’ mandate, but job creation is part of the governing party’s obligation.

Destroying jobs, however, is not part of either the bank or the government/governing party’s mandate.

About 40 000 livelihoods, mine included, are counting on the country’s legal system to hear the case brought to several of South Africa’s courts by the Sekunjalo Group, its chairperson Dr Iqbal Survé and entities related to

Sekunjalo Investment Holdings.

The battle lines are drawn in what looks set to be an epic case that may see the evolution of banking law, considering that all along the banks have relied on contract law and repeatedly cited reputational risk as reasons for closing accounts.

If there is one case that needs to be ventilated in our courts, this is it.

We have already heard scathing allegations about the banks being involved in corruption at the Zondo Commission.

South Africa needs to know if indeed there was any wrongdoing on the part of Survé and Sekunjalo, or if the banks are simply acting on instruction from the country’s privileged elite.

At the very least, I certainly want to hear these arguments in court under oath. I am not alone in this, especially as this is not just about Sekunjalo, but about every single citizen in this country – what happens in this case has far-reaching implications for us all.