THE settlement between the Public Investment Corporation (PIC) and AYO Technology Solutions (AYO) has ended their protracted legal dispute. However, the AYO case highlights the impact of negative media coverage and the weaponisation of quasi-judicial processes, such as commissions of inquiry against companies.
The case has broader implications for the South African business landscape, particularly international investor sentiment.
AYO, a large information technology company, was formed by amalgamating several long-standing, profitable IT companies into the ICT group. But hostile media gave the impression that a “small, newly formed IT company” approached the PIC for a more considerable investment than its actual size. The media built the narrative to target and undermine AYO.
The disproportionate targeting of AYO and associate companies at the Mpati Commission of Inquiry raises concerns about the fairness and balance of the investigation and the integrity of its findings. On the other hand, hostile media perpetuated a negative narrative against the company and the chairman of one of the shareholder companies, Dr Iqbal Survé.
Judge Lex Mpati, SC, called around a dozen predominantly black-owned companies to testify. But the media and the commission deliberately narrowed all the focus to AYO, distorting coverage, terms of inquiry and findings to inflict more reputational harm. As a result, the banks shut down the bank accounts of AYO and its associated companies, citing “reputational risk”.
The impact of negative media coverage and the weaponisation of the PIC commission against AYO Technology Solutions extends beyond the fate of a single company. It has several consequences, with implications even for international investors.
International investors prioritise stable, transparent, and well-regulated environments for their investments. The treatment of AYO raises concerns about the impartiality of legal processes and the accuracy of media reporting, potentially damaging investor confidence.
When President Cyril Ramaphosa came into office, he went on an investment drive, creating investment envoys to raise capital to the tune of a trillion rand for the country. The effort is futile if investors’ security is at the mercy of weaponised media, unfair state institutions, and banks that unilaterally shut off bank accounts.
It is important to recognise that transparency and accountability in business dealings, particularly those involving public funds are crucial for the country. However, the AYO case is far from being about transparency. We saw co-ordinated, biased negative media coverage emanating from the commission.
If the media and the commission were not a tool used as a battering ram against AYO, all the other companies that appeared before the commission would face the same scrutiny. But they did not.
Beyond the rhetoric and repeated defamatory media narrative, AYO did nothing wrong. Neither did Survé.
Since the late 1990s, when Sekunjalo was formed, listed on Johannesburg Stock Exchange, and growing to acquire over 200 companies, Survé or his companies have never been found nor accused of any wrongdoing. The repeated false propaganda narrative about him will never stick, no matter how hard it’s driven.
The focus on Survé and the attacks on him intensified after Sekunjalo acquired Independent Media, one of the largest media houses, from the Irish. Negative coverage continued, with some media houses even boasting about using their coverage to block a significant stock exchange listing of Sagarmatha, a company under the Sekunjalo Group.
The Public Servants Association’s (PSA) reaction to the settlement between the PIC and AYO is concerning. The PSA must avoid being used as a tool to feed the propaganda mill used to destroy a black-owned company in which the PIC is a shareholder.
The treatment of AYO and its implications for the broader landscape of black-owned and led businesses in South Africa remains worrying. It serves as a cautionary tale, suggesting that similar companies may face similar challenges now or in the future.
Large companies like AYO play a significant role in job creation and economic development. In addition, they make substantial economic contributions through taxes, infrastructure development, and the provision of goods and services.
Hindering their growth potential through propaganda and biased quasi-judicial processes affects these companies and the broader economy. It reduces the resources available for public services, infrastructure development, and social programmes.
The case of AYO underscores the importance of impartial oversight of state institutions. The repercussions extend beyond the company, affecting international investors, jobs, and overall economic contributions.
While investors are watching, many at the back of their minds ask themselves: Who is next after Survé and AYO? The conclusion of the matter via legal settlement is more than a welcome relief, with benefits far beyond the immediate shareholders.
Sizwe Dlamini is acting editor of the Sunday Independent
BUSINESS REPORT