Listen here.A six-year delay, constitutional criticism, and allegations of misleading the court - Rob Rose’s investigation into South Africa’s Competition Tribunal raises serious questions about accountability and economic governance. In this hard-hitting discussion with Alec Hogg, Rose unpacks how regulatory paralysis, questionable decision-making, and a lack of consequences are undermining business confidence and investment. From stalled competition cases to broader failures across state institutions, this conversation explores why efficient, credible regulation is essential for economic growth and South Africa’s future prosperity..Sign up for your early morning brew of the BizNews Insider to keep you up to speed with the content that matters. The newsletter will land in your inbox every morning on weekdays. Register here.Support South Africa's bastion of independent journalism, offering balanced insights on investments, business, and the political economy, by joining BizNews Premium. Register here.If you prefer WhatsApp for updates, sign up to the BizNews channel here..Judges lash ‘egregious’ Competition Tribunal.In a blistering ruling this week, the Competition Appeal Court said a six-year delay in finalising a cartel case is ‘offensive to the constitution’..By Rob Rose.If you’re looking for an indictment of how South Africa’s competition regime has wedged the country’s corporate sector in molasses, look no further than a damning decision this week – more than six years in the making. On Monday, the Competition Appeal Court handed down a ruling in a case dating back to before Covid, involving Cape Gate, a producer of long steel products based in the industrial heartland of Vanderbijlpark in Gauteng.In 2009, the Competition Commission first took action against Cape Gate, along with ArcelorMittal South Africa, Columbus Stainless, and Scaw, accusing them of creating a “buyers’ cartel” to fix the price of scrap metal between 1998 and 2008. ArcelorMittal and Columbus admitted liability and settled with the commission, while Scaw, being the whistleblower, got leniency. Cape Gate, however, opted to fight the case.Finally, in 2019, the Competition Tribunal heard the case against Cape Gate, with the commission asking for an order declaring that it had committed a “prohibited practice”. The hearing took place as scheduled, and then … nothing.Each request by Cape Gate’s lawyers for a clue as to when the ruling would emerge was met with some excuse. The ruling was “being finalised”; it was “with the panel members”; it was due any day.Six years ticked by, and it was only in August 2025 that the tribunal released its decision, finding against Cape Gate. The company, rightly, appealed to the Competition Appeal Court to overturn it, citing, among other reasons, the ludicrous delay.The appeal court has now set aside the tribunal’s decision, ordering it to “reconsider” this case under a new panel.But the real sting in this case is that the majority of the appeal court judges, Mokgere Masipa and James Lekhuleni, excoriated the tribunal’s behaviour in a way that raises serious questions about its competence and ethics. Parks Tau, the minister of trade, industry and competition, should be clearing his diary to fix this.The ruling accuses members of the tribunal not just of lying, but of acting unlawfully in a way that is “offensive to the constitution”.“The delay of the tribunal in giving judgment is so egregious that it cannot be deprecated strongly enough. It is incontestable that the delay of six years amounts to a serious dereliction of duty warranting censure,” they said. “The tribunal members who delayed the ruling for over six years undermine the dignity and effectiveness of the tribunal as an institution.”The extraordinary delays, the absence of a coherent explanation and inconsistencies in the tribunal’s explanations “are not isolated defects; they are systemic and interrelated”, the judges said.Accusations of deceptionNow, the Competition Act is clear that hearings must be conducted “as expeditiously as possible”. The tribunal tried to argue that this applied only to the hearing itself, not to the decision, but the judges weren’t buying it.This imperative for a quick resolution “extends to the entire adjudicative function of the tribunal, including the making, finalisation and delivery of its decision”.But what makes this story so much worse for the tribunal is the accusations of deception that emerge in the ruling.While Mondo Mazwai, the tribunal’s chair, claimed the delay was due to Covid and “a shortage of personnel”, the panel members said this was rather because there were “settlement” discussions taking place between Cape Gate and the commission.There were never any such talks, however. The appeal ruling describes this explanation as false, since the tribunal panel was never told of any settlement talks. “The excuse raised by the [panellists] … is false and contradicts the explanation they proffer in their respective explanatory affidavits. Significantly, this excuse is not borne out by the evidence,” the judges said.The accusation that the panel members “acted either in reckless or deliberate disregard of the truth” was serious, yet neither they nor Mazwai engaged with it.Given all of this, setting aside the decision serves an important constitutional purpose: “It reinforces the obligation of administrative bodies to act diligently, rationally and fairly, and signals that failures in the administration of justice will have consequences.”Mired in molassesOren Kaplan, chair of Cape Gate, tells Currency that he “feels vindicated” by the ruling. “We await the tribunal’s reconsideration and trust that the matter will not be heard again,” he says. “We have grave concerns [over whether] a fair or relevant hearing can take place after all this time.”Kaplan says he shares the concern that the competition authorities have mired South African businesses in molasses.He says that while Cape Gate supports a competitive and fair marketplace, “the steel business in South Africa is tough enough without what we regard as damaging, costly and time-consuming investigations which are not timeously resolved”.In response, Mazwai tells Currency that the tribunal “respects” the appeal court decision, and will re-enrol the case before a new panel.“We take its concerns regarding the delay in issuing the decision seriously. The delay, while regrettable, arose in a context that included institutional capacity constraints, which placed pressure on the tribunal’s ability to finalise complex matters timeously.”Nonetheless, this judgment is an alarming rebuke of the tribunal, which should act as a wake-up call for Tau to take a hard look at its leadership, management and capacity.One competition lawyer tells Currency that this is “a bright red flare that the tribunal needs new members now”, indicating that restoring its capacity to decide cases is “essential” for the business sector.This is not, of course, the first sign that the competition authorities have fallen short of their mandate to improve efficiency and equity in the economy. But it is the clearest illustration yet of the systemic blockages – and possible ethical infractions – that should worry everyone in Tau’s ministry in Sunnyside, Pretoria.This, after all, is the state body meant to be the final word on takeovers and abuse of dominance cases; it shouldn’t be the one responsible for abuse. .Rob Rose: As legal challenges to NHI begin, Cosatu scores own goal.Edited transcript of the interview.00:00:09:02 - 00:00:37:06Alec Hogg:Rob Rose gets his teeth into very interesting subjects from time to time, and he's just done that now. He's the Editor-in-Chief of the FM Group, which includes Financial Mail and Currency News. And Rob has put a piece together on the Competition Tribunal that will send shivers down the spine of any rational South African businessperson. We'll tell you why.00:00:37:08 - 00:00:58:01Alec Hogg:Rob, I suppose I should have said businessperson, of course, because the girls are really taking a leading role when it comes to South African business. But what a story. I can imagine there will be some young journalists, or students at Rhodes, saying: "Where does he get these amazing pieces from?"00:00:58:01 - 00:01:01:16Alec Hogg:Where do they fall out of the sky?00:01:01:18 - 00:01:16:00Rob Rose:Well, that's interesting. I think that once you've been around this business for long enough, as you and I have been, you have people who are involved in various parts of the economy who call you and say, "I've just seen this thing, and it's outrageous. I think the world should know about it."00:01:16:00 - 00:01:32:09Rob Rose:And that's how this particular story, and many other stories, happen. As journalists, we often miss what's happening on the ground. That's why it's vital to have a community of people in the business sector who can call you up and say, "I think we need to give this some serious airtime."00:01:32:09 - 00:01:35:01Rob Rose:And that's what happened in this particular case.00:01:35:03 - 00:01:50:00Alec Hogg:Well, it is a sometimes-forgotten science of journalism, which is that it's all about connections. It's all about your contacts, isn't it? You work your contact book and, over the years, reap the fruits.00:01:50:02 - 00:02:07:19Rob Rose:Yes. And as somebody who's been around for ages, I think a lot of contacts in various sectors of the economy and society want to trust that you'll do a good job. If they say to you, "There's a story that needs to be explored in depth..."00:02:07:19 - 00:02:34:20Rob Rose:...something has happened and it's really outrageous or unfair to one particular part of society, they want to think you'll do a good job and be fair about it. If you just chase tabloid-style headlines and want a quick-hit story, people are going to think you're not going to do a justifiable job. You're not going to dig in depth into a specific issue.Ultimately, those kinds of stories fail to land because you haven't treated them with the seriousness they demand.00:02:34:20 - 00:02:49:05Rob Rose:I think that's what you see from the best journalists out there. The people who do really well will dig into a story and explore it in depth. That's what we need to do with so many of the huge faults in society that need to be remedied.00:02:49:05 - 00:02:59:02Rob Rose:We can't just move from one scandal to the next and say, "Oh, this happened, too bad." You've got to really explore those fault lines and see how they can be fixed.00:02:59:04 - 00:03:19:18Alec Hogg:Reading through this piece, I wondered what David Lewis would have made of all this. He was a highly regarded member of the Competition Tribunal for many years and served as chairman for a long time. He wrote that excellent book, Thieves at the Dinner Table, where he explained his time there.00:03:19:20 - 00:03:29:13Alec Hogg:I wonder what he would have made of all of this. But I'm running ahead of myself. Give us the story in a nutshell so that we can then go into a little more depth.00:03:29:15 - 00:03:57:07Rob Rose:Sure. The context is that the competition authorities were set up in the late 1990s to ensure that the market operated efficiently, that market failures were prevented, and that there was fair business taking place. That was the whole point of it.If there were cartels where people were fixing prices and starving smaller companies out of the market, they would be dealt with through new rules and penalties.00:03:57:09 - 00:04:20:06Rob Rose:But I think what has happened in recent times is that the competition authorities have introduced more sand into the system, blocking businesses from doing deals.You may remember the case about 15 years ago involving Harmony Gold and Gold Fields. Harmony tried to buy Gold Fields, and ultimately that offer was never heard by shareholders because it got stuck at the Competition Tribunal.00:04:20:06 - 00:04:43:19Rob Rose:So an offer was made to shareholders saying, "We know it's a hostile offer, but would you like to accept it and let Harmony control Gold Fields?" It never actually got to the shareholders because of the hold-up at the Tribunal.You see the Tribunal and the competition authorities acting like molasses in the system, slowing things down, which means genuine economic opportunities are missed because they are never properly heard.00:04:43:19 - 00:05:05:03Rob Rose:This particular case related to a cartel hearing involving scrap metal, dating back to the early 2000s. A couple of members of the steel industry, including ArcelorMittal, Columbus Steel and Scaw, essentially said: "Okay, we were part of a buyers' cartel. We created this cartel to fix the price of scrap metal."00:05:05:04 - 00:05:25:05Rob Rose:Another company, which is the subject of this appeal, Cape Gate, said: "Actually, we weren't part of a cartel. We don't think this is fair and we're not going to plead guilty."The competition authorities investigated the matter and referred it to the Tribunal more than a decade ago. Eventually, in 2019, the case was heard against Cape Gate.00:05:25:07 - 00:05:48:10Rob Rose:The case was heard in 2019, and then it took six years for a decision to be issued. Eventually, after six years, the Competition Tribunal came back and said that Cape Gate was guilty of prohibited conduct.Cape Gate then said: "We can't wait six years for this. This must go to the Competition Appeal Court."00:05:48:11 - 00:06:06:15Rob Rose:"We can't have a situation where you're preventing us from finalising deals and doing business for six years, and this ruling should be overturned."What happened last week is that the Competition Appeal Court came back and said this delay was completely unacceptable. It was egregious. The Tribunal was effectively holding up the system.00:06:06:16 - 00:06:25:04Rob Rose:The court said this kind of thing cannot be allowed to happen. More than that, it raised ethical questions because, when asked about the delay, the chair of the Tribunal said it was because of Covid and various other factors.But the actual Tribunal panel members said it was because they thought settlement discussions were under way.00:06:25:04 - 00:06:54:04Rob Rose:So the Appeal Court said that not only had there been an egregious and unconstitutional delay, but there were now ethical questions as well.I think it casts a cloud over the functioning of our competition authorities. It's the kind of thing the minister should already be looking at. There needs to be a complete overhaul if these institutions are to bolster our economy rather than hold it back.00:06:54:06 - 00:07:20:13Alec Hogg:It's interesting when you look at comparisons globally. In the United States, you have a president who wants to remove anything to do with competition restraints or antitrust measures that stop large companies from potentially preying on consumers.South Africa has gone completely the other way.00:07:20:14 - 00:07:34:13Alec Hogg:So you have these two sides of the spectrum.But getting back to David Lewis: I know you were around when he was chairman. Did you share the view that he actually did a good job?00:07:34:15 - 00:07:53:16Rob Rose:Yes, he was fantastic. I thought David Lewis was great when he was at the Tribunal, and I knew him quite well when he was at Corruption Watch afterwards.I think David had a strong ethical sense of the role that business could play. He was an economist at the outset, so he approached it from a pragmatic economic point of view, which was very useful.00:07:53:18 - 00:08:10:04Rob Rose:Having said that, he was at the Tribunal when the Harmony Gold–Gold Fields matter unfolded, and there are certain structural issues that I don't think have ever been resolved.But David Lewis was practical and pragmatic. I don't think cases like this would have happened under his watch.00:08:10:06 - 00:08:17:23Alec Hogg:It certainly wouldn't have taken as long as it did. And the wording from the judges seems unusual.00:08:18:01 - 00:08:37:10Rob Rose:In this particular case, it was very clear they wanted to send a strong message.They said this was completely unconscionable. They described it as offensive to the Constitution, which is not the kind of language you normally hear from judges in an appeal court like this.00:08:37:11 - 00:08:55:00Rob Rose:They said the delay was so egregious that it could not be deprecated strongly enough. It is incontestable that a delay of six years amounts to a serious dereliction of duty warranting censure.And I think, Alec, what was important as well is that they said these administrative bodies, which form part of our broader administrative system, cannot spend this long on anything.00:08:55:00 - 00:09:18:21Rob Rose:And I think it's not just the competition authorities that should take note of this. It's all our administrative bodies that tend to take far too long to make decisions.You see it even with cases involving the financial regulator, the FSCA. Some of those take a very long time. And, obviously, we don't even need to mention our courts and what happens with the NPA.00:09:18:23 - 00:09:26:03Alec Hogg:Have you ever questioned anybody and asked, "Why is it taking you so long? What is the hold-up?"00:09:26:05 - 00:09:48:17Rob Rose:When I have these interactions with various members of these bodies, and I think of the FSCA, and I've spoken extensively to prosecutors involved in white-collar crime, the answer is always that it's very complicated.Businesses lawyer up. They have ten advocates in the room who introduce more sand into the system and make things last longer.00:09:48:17 - 00:10:17:08Rob Rose:But I tend to think that's often an excuse.If you look at the case of Steinhoff, which happened in 2017, there were things for which Markus Jooste could have been charged almost immediately. The SMS messages he sent, which were clear insider trading, telling his friends to sell shares.The prosecutors had that information within a year of Steinhoff collapsing, and yet it took until 2023 or 2024 to actually charge Jooste on what was arguably the most blatant insider-trading case imaginable.00:10:17:08 - 00:10:39:04Rob Rose:So I think it's unnecessary hesitancy.Our government oversight bodies often lack confidence because they don't have the skills and they don't have the manpower. They're wary and approach these matters very cautiously because, as we've seen in cases involving the Guptas, prosecutions can fall apart and public officials are then castigated for it.00:10:39:04 - 00:10:49:17Rob Rose:Which, in some respects, they should be.But the reality is that these delays are preventing our economy from functioning in any meaningful way that benefits anyone.00:11:04:14 - 00:11:11:11Alec Hogg:A competition authority is so central to the functioning of an economy.00:11:11:11 - 00:11:32:11Alec Hogg:And in this case, one of the things that shook me was that there were members of the panel who effectively lied to the court.They said the delay was because settlement negotiations were under way, which Cape Gate said was never the case.00:11:32:13 - 00:11:51:03Rob Rose:Yes. That's the issue for which they were completely castigated.The Competition Appeal Court judges described it as outrageous. They used the word "falsehoods" rather than outright lies, but the implication is essentially the same.It's unbelievable that there could be two such contrasting explanations.00:11:51:03 - 00:12:19:03Rob Rose:Either they genuinely didn't know what was going on, or they were misleading the court.To have Appeal Court judges saying this is deeply alarming is extraordinary.Even the minority judgment in the ruling reflected a way of looking at the matter that was deeply troubling for people who are effectively the final authority on competition matters.00:12:19:05 - 00:12:28:05Rob Rose:So I think it illustrates the need for new capacity, certainly on this panel and more broadly within the authorities.00:12:28:07 - 00:12:50:22Alec Hogg:That's very diplomatic - "new capacity".I've been looking at the Johannesburg budgets that are now publicly available, and those people haven't got a clue what's going on. They have a maintenance shortfall of R220 billion and have budgeted only R8 billion.I know you and your team have done a lot of work on this.00:12:51:00 - 00:13:14:01Alec Hogg:It's like people who haven't got a clue have been promoted into these positions, are being paid very handsomely, and are causing chaos as they go along.Reading through your story, I got the feeling that maybe some of the members - if not all of the members - of the Competition Tribunal panel are in the same position.00:13:14:03 - 00:13:36:03Rob Rose:Yes. People have left the panel.In one case, they effectively allowed the equivalent of an administrative clerk to drop the ruling and then blamed that person when things didn't happen.There is a real lack of responsibility and accountability in this case.And, as you say, this isn't an isolated incident.00:13:36:03 - 00:13:55:22Rob Rose:Look at the case involving the banks.The Competition Commission tried to investigate banks for allegedly rigging the rand and related conduct.This wasn't a case initiated solely by the Competition Commission. It was based on investigations in the United States involving Barclays and several other large banks, and much of the evidence came from overseas.Yet that case is still ongoing.00:13:55:22 - 00:14:16:01Rob Rose:The Competition Commission tried to throw the book at virtually every bank operating in the country and, frankly, made a mess of it.Some of the banks were later excluded, and findings suggested that certain institutions should never have been charged in the first place.That demonstrates a complete disconnect from what the authorities are actually supposed to be doing.00:14:16:01 - 00:14:35:22Rob Rose:This is an economic role intended to improve the economy, not simply hold things up.The attempt to charge all the banks in that case and then fail to resolve it after many years is just as alarming as the Cape Gate matter.There are simply too many examples where the system is not working.00:14:36:00 - 00:14:41:22Alec Hogg:There are many things wrong with the South African economy and with its structure.00:14:41:22 - 00:14:55:12Alec Hogg:But if you could change one thing with a magic wand - you mentioned capacity - would that be it?Would it be putting the right people into these very powerful positions?00:14:55:14 - 00:15:17:04Rob Rose:I absolutely think talent is critical, especially in municipalities and many of these institutions.But more broadly, I think South Africans are a very polite people. We don't like confronting others.Our inability to fire people when they get things wrong is a scourge.00:15:17:04 - 00:15:37:18Rob Rose:You see it everywhere, from the smallest company all the way to Parliament and President Ramaphosa's Cabinet.People get shuffled aside and somebody else is appointed to the same job.The City of Johannesburg is a perfect example. The proposal is to hire more people - around 40,000 - to fix problems that 34,000 people couldn't fix.The solution isn't to hire more people.00:15:37:20 - 00:15:53:21Rob Rose:The solution is to get better results from the people you already have.An appreciation of the need to confront these issues would make a huge difference in municipalities across the country.The wrong people should simply be fired.And the traditional response is that it's very difficult to fire someone in South Africa.00:15:53:23 - 00:16:05:09Rob Rose:I don't think that's true.If there is merit, you can absolutely fire people.The problem is that many managers are utterly gutless and don't want to have that fight.That's what gets us into this trouble.00:16:05:11 - 00:16:21:18Alec Hogg:Let's go back to the Competition Tribunal and your takeaways from this very extended case.Apart from the fact that lawyers have probably been very well fed over a lengthy period of time, what's your main takeaway?00:16:23:00 - 00:16:39:19Rob Rose:You mentioned David Lewis, and that era was one in which I spent a lot of time at the Tribunal and the Competition Commission.There were some very important cases, such as the bread-fixing case.There were many important matters that needed to be heard.But it was a different time at the Tribunal.00:16:39:19 - 00:16:57:08Rob Rose:You tended to trust the rulings.You believed there was validity to them.Today, that sense that the authority is functioning in a solid manner and that its decisions will withstand scrutiny in the High Court or Constitutional Court simply isn't there anymore.00:16:57:08 - 00:17:22:12Rob Rose:I think the lack of trust in this institution is adding to the cloud hanging over our corporate sector.People already have many reasons not to invest in South Africa.You don't want the Competition Commission unnecessarily holding things up to become another one.We had a bizarre case a few years ago where black empowerment shareholders in Burger King wanted to sell their shareholding.00:17:22:13 - 00:17:45:02Rob Rose:And they weren't allowed to.The authorities effectively said, "You can't sell the shares."Eventually that decision was overturned.But imagine being a black empowerment shareholder and being told you can't sell your shares.What does that achieve?It's simply another blockage in the economy.00:17:45:02 - 00:17:50:23Rob Rose:For me, the takeaway is that the competition authorities, as currently constituted, don't appreciate the broader social context or the need for genuine economic growth and job creation.That's the overriding imperative.And I don't feel the people there at the moment are connected to that imperative.00:18:44:06 - 00:18:47:17Alec Hogg:Rob Rose is the Editor-in-Chief of the Financial Mail Group.00:18:47:21 - 00:18:49:20Alec Hogg:I'm Alec Hogg for BizNews.