South Africa's Top Court Clears Antitrust Trial Against Banks Over Rand Manipulation

South Africa’s Constitutional Court cleared the way on Tuesday, 30 June, for a high-stakes antitrust trial against six major banks accused of manipulating the rand’s exchange rate, while simultaneously narrowing a case that once targeted nearly three times as many institutions.

Justice Owen Rogers delivered the judgment, upholding the Competition Commission’s authority to pursue the action but rejecting several of the regulator’s arguments against an earlier Competition Appeal Court ruling. The decision leaves Investec, BNP Paribas, JPMorgan Chase & Co, JPMorgan Chase Bank NA, Standard Americas Incorporated and HSBC Bank facing substantive allegations at the Competition Tribunal of South Africa. The case proceeds to that tribunal for full trial.

The ruling is a material setback for the Commission’s enforcement strategy. The regulator had appealed a Competition Appeal Court decision that dismissed claims against the majority of the 28 institutions originally named in the action. The Constitutional Court largely upheld that dismissal, leaving the Commission to proceed against six defendants rather than the broader group it had sought to hold accountable.

Among the African financial institutions that secured exclusion from the case are FirstRand and the Standard Bank of South Africa, both significant players in the continent’s banking sector. Their removal reflects the Appeal Court’s finding that the Commission had not established sufficient grounds for their continued participation in the litigation.

The dispute centers on allegations that traders at numerous South African and global banks engaged in coordinated conduct to manipulate the foreign exchange rate between the US dollar and the rand across a seven-year period spanning 2007 to 2013. The Commission initiated the original complaint in 2015, referring it to the Competition Tribunal in 2017. The case has since navigated separate proceedings at both the Tribunal and the Appeal Court before reaching the Constitutional Court.

A Commission spokesperson indicated the regulator was still analyzing the judgment and would issue a comprehensive response at a later date, suggesting its next steps remain under review as it considers the ruling’s implications for enforcement priorities.

By contrast, the Commission’s broader enforcement calendar has not stalled. Last month it referred a separate complaint against Adcock Ingram Critical Care to the Competition Tribunal, alleging excessive pricing in the renal dialysis market, a referral that signals the regulator’s continued appetite for action across multiple sectors.

The narrowing of the forex case reflects the courts’ application of evidentiary standards in antitrust litigation. The remaining six defendants must now defend themselves against substantive claims at the tribunal level, where the Commission will be required to present detailed evidence of the alleged collusive conduct.

The case ranks among the most significant antitrust matters in South Africa’s recent history, touching on conduct that allegedly distorted currency markets during a period of considerable economic activity. Whether the Commission’s evidence, tested fully at tribunal for the first time, will be sufficient to establish liability against the six remaining banks is the question that now governs the proceedings.