Businessman Sipho Pityana has lost his bid to be reinstated to the Absa board.
Image: Simphiwe Mbokazi / Independent Newspapers
Businessman Sipho Pityana has failed in his battle to be reinstated to the Absa board of directors after the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, refused to review and set aside the bank’s decision.
Pityana, who was Absa board member from May 2019 until his removal in November 2021, had also wanted just and equitable compensation as an alternative.
The SA Reserve Bank’s Prudential Authority notified Absa that it objected to Pityana’s nomination as the banking giant’s chairperson.
“The message from Absa's latest actions – removing me as the lead independent director and remuneration committee – and its proposed removal of me as a director is clear: 'if you take on the regulator and exercise your legal rights, you will be punished and removed',” Pityana complained when his removal was first mooted.
He continued: “This is most unfortunate. It punishes me and prejudices me for exercising my legal rights set out in the Constitution and the Banks Act. They cannot be right.”
Pityana’s troubles started when he was nominated to be Absa chairperson when it emerged that during his time at AngloGold Ashanti, where he was a non-executive director, there had been an allegation of sexual harassment made against him.
He resigned after an agreement was entered into between the company, the complainant, and him.
As a result, the complaint was initially not investigated by AngloGold Ashanti and it, therefore, remained an untested allegation.
However, it was later independently investigated by a senior advocate, who filed a report which was not favourable to Pityana, who filed a successful legal review of the report. During the nomination process, Absa raised the issue of sexual harassment.
The Prudential Authority later informed Absa that it would object to Pityana’s nomination, while he maintained that the allegations against him were unfounded.
The authority, which exercises an oversight role and is entitled to object to the appointment of a nominee in terms of the Banks Act, expressed its reservations concerning Pityana's potential nomination for the position of Absa chairperson.
Absa also accused Pityana of not being frank or candid on the circumstances of his departure from AngloGold Ashanti and whether this might hold any reputational risk for the bank if he were nominated for the appointment as its chairperson.
According to the judgment handed by Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, Judge Petrus van Niekerk earlier this month, Pityana embarked on a “roadshow”, which consisted of a lengthy press release and various media interviews, including talk shows on radio stations.
“The purpose of this was mainly to save his reputation and this public relations exercise resulted therein that various publications carried articles where Absa was directly or indirectly criticised for allowing alleged interference by the PA in its board of directors, where the Prudential Authority was inter alia accused of acting ‘unconstitutionally’ and as a result whereof the applicant (Pityana) brought the issue that he was accused of sexual harassment into the public domain,” reads the ruling.
Pityana then decided to challenge the Prudential Authority and Absa in various court proceedings, alleging that the authority acted ultra vires (beyond its powers) and contrary to the provisions of the Banks Act.
Judge Van Niekerk found that there was no legal obligation on Pityana to follow this course of conduct the “roadshow” and his conduct constituted a clear breach of trust and created a conflict of interest.
“I am of the view that the decision to remove the applicant as a director of Absa is not reviewable on the grounds as advanced by the applicant and that the application therefore stands to be dismissed,” the judge said when dismissing Pityana’s application with costs.
Last month, IOL reported that the Prudential Authority was granted permission to appeal the June 2025 ruling by Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, Judge Luleka Flatela, which declared that the authority acted unlawfully and beyond its powers under the Banks Act by engaging in an informal process with the Absa Group and Absa concerning Pityana’s nomination, specifically by notifying Absa of its objection.
loyiso.sidimba@inl.co.za