Investec says the Competition Commission has no viable case against it, and has asked the Commission to withdraw its referral in the long-running rand-rigging case. The bank says that if the Commission declines, it will ask the Competition Tribunal for the same thing. The Commission has not been reported as responding to the request.
The Competition Commission is the government body responsible for enforcing South Africa’s competition law. In this matter it is the complainant, and it is the Competition Tribunal that hears the case.
What rand-rigging actually alleges
The term refers to allegations that banks colluded to influence the rand/US dollar exchange rate, typically to benefit their own trading positions at the expense of ordinary market participants trading on the assumption of a fair, uncoordinated price. According to BusinessTech, the Commission alleges that traders took turns buying or selling so that each could act without competitive interference.
The outcome matters to business owners and investors well beyond Investec itself, because a finding of wrongdoing anywhere in this case could bring reputational damage and raise questions about how banks price foreign-exchange services. For small and medium enterprises relying on the rand for imports, exports or debt servicing, trust in currency pricing bears directly on cash flow and borrowing costs.
How the case got here
The case dates back to a 2015 investigation. In 2017 the Commission referred a complaint against 18 banks to the Competition Tribunal, and the complaint was later widened to cover 28 local and international banks. In January 2024 the Competition Appeal Court dismissed the case against 23 of the 28 banks. The matter then reached the Constitutional Court, which, in a judgment handed down on 30 June 2026, found that the Commission had not shown, on its own pleadings, a prima facie case of a single overarching conspiracy against the South African banks.
Investec did not join the earlier applications that reached the Constitutional Court. It says senior counsel advised it to go straight to the merits because the case against it was weak. It argues that its facts are similar or identical to those of the South African banks that have been removed from the referral, and that the earlier rulings would likely apply to it too.
Investec’s statement is the bank’s own position, and the Commission has not accepted it. In a presentation to Parliament’s Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry on 19 August, the Commission said it would move to prosecute seven banks, Investec included. Investec is the only major South African bank still facing prosecution in the case, so the withdrawal request is a significant step.
Both the Commission’s reply and any later application to the Tribunal will need watching. Until the Commission withdraws its referral or the Tribunal rules, Investec remains a formal respondent.
What it means for business owners
For South African SMEs, the practical relevance sits somewhere between abstract and immediate. Currency pricing at the level being investigated operates at a scale far removed from a typical business’s day-to-day foreign-exchange dealings, yet the outcome still matters, because a market found to be distorted erodes the trust a business needs when converting rand into dollars or euros for an invoice, an import order, or a loan repayment.
For the regulator’s own information, see the Competition Commission. For related coverage of a different Competition Commission matter from the same period, see this site’s report on the call to probe Premier Foods’ Tulbagh closure.
Sources: Daily Investor and BusinessTech.
