Competition Commission’s rand-manipulation case returns to the Constitutional Court with jurisdiction at the center
The Constitutional Court is set to resume hearings in the Competition Commission’s decades-long bid to secure justice over alleged rand manipulation by banks. The commission emphasizes that the core issue is jurisdiction, warning that without a clear legal footing, a regulatory gap could persist that would allow collusion to fix the rand’s value without consequences.
Last year, the Competition Appeal Court dismissed the cases against some of the 28 banks accused of manipulating the currency. The current hearing focuses on which court or authority has the power to adjudicate these allegations and what that means for enforcement in South Africa’s financial markets.
What this means for enforcement and market integrity
– A ruling on jurisdiction could determine how competition authorities pursue alleged currency manipulation and bank collusion in the future.
– If the court finds a solid jurisdictional footing, regulators may have stronger tools to address similar conduct and close gaps that could enable illicit coordination.
What to watch
– The constitutional court’s decision on whether the Competition Commission has the appropriate jurisdiction to hear these claims.
– Any implications for the scope of regulatory reach over financial market manipulation and cross-bank collusion.
Summary
The hearing centers on whether the Competition Commission has the proper jurisdiction to pursue a landmark case against banks accused of rand manipulation, a decision that could reshape enforcement in financial markets and close potential regulatory gaps.
Added context and perspective
– A ruling in favor of the Commission could bolster confidence in market integrity and demonstrate a commitment to robust oversight of financial-market conduct.
– Conversely, a ruling against the Commission on jurisdiction could prompt calls for alternate legal pathways or reforms to ensure that currency-manipulation cases are effectively addressable under South Africa’s competition and financial-regulation framework.
Note: This rewrite integrates the central facts from the original article: the Constitutional Court hearing, the importance of jurisdiction, the risk of a regulatory gap, and the CAC’s dismissal of some cases against 28 banks last year. The piece remains focused on factual developments and their implications for market regulation and enforcement.