By Edmond Phiri
In what has become a predictable pattern of biased reporting, Karyn Maughan’s January 9 article on the Competition Tribunal’s ruling against Sekunjalo reads more like finely polished corporate propaganda than balanced journalism. This time, however, her propaganda tactics carry an even sharper edge: a deliberate sleight of hand designed to mask the banks’ far more humiliating defeat in the main collusion case concerning their coordinated closure of Sekunjalo’s accounts.
While Maughan trumpets the Competition Tribunal’s dismissal of an interim application, she conveniently buries – with almost surgical precision – the November 19 finding by the Competition Commission that Nedbank and other financial institutions engaged in prohibited practices through the coordinated closure of Sekunjalo’s accounts. The groundbreaking revelation of corporate collusion, which ought to be the centrepiece of any serious reporting, is instead relegated to a near footnote. The resulting piece is less journalism and more of a stealth marketing campaign for the banking establishment.
Maughan's latest offering follows her established template: present a seemingly factual narrative while carefully constructing an echo chamber that amplifies the banking sector's perspective while muffling Sekunjalo's voice. The headline – dismissing Sekunjalo’s “last-gasp” bid – telegraphs a brazen editorial stance from the outset, painting a dry, procedural development as the main story while ignoring the banks’ much larger loss in the bigger picture.
The timing of her coverage and its decidedly one-sided tilt raise uncomfortable questions about the white media, embedded journalism, and corporate elites. Either Maughan is incredibly blinkered by her proximity to Nedbank’s interests, or – more disturbingly – she is carrying water for the financial establishment’s entrenched stranglehold on power in South Africa.
Most striking, however, is Maughan’s ability to feign amnesia over the Competition Commission’s recent and decisive conclusions. While she dedicates herself to excavating the ‘historical context’ that supports the bank's position, she gives little attention to the Commission's determination that the banks' collective unbanking of Sekunjalo "constitutes a prohibited concerted practice". Maughan presents a masterclass in corporate spin: bury the damning evidence beneath a trove of quotes and references that buttress Nedbank’s storyline.
The structure of her article is a classic propaganda technique – reinforcing Nedbank’s narrative through repetition and selective detail while reducing Sekunjalo’s legal arguments to muddled snippets. The exhaustive fixation on the Mpati Commission findings has the convenient effect of overshadowing the fact that it did not find Sekunjalo guilty of wrongdoing and the damning evidence of collusion unearthed by the Competition Commission.
Maughan’s narrow emphasis on AYO’s share price, with scarcely any scrutiny of other PIC investments or wider market conditions, continues her tradition of painting Sekunjalo as a uniquely suspect entity. In so doing, she sidesteps the urgent, larger issue: banks wielding their formidable power to exclude black-owned businesses from full participation in the formal economy.
Conspicuously missing from her Nedbank public relations “report” is any serious discussion of how financial institutions can, in effect, unfairly close business’ bank accounts – an issue at the heart of the Commission’s findings. The potential for abuse here is enormous, yet Maughan opts for a bland retelling of Nedbank’s version of events rather than grappling with the uncomfortable reality of corporate muscle flexing.
Her reporting technique remains consistent with what I previously characterised as reminiscent of Nazi propaganda style and methodologies – not in content, but in technique. The careful selection of facts, the strategic placement of information, the emotional loading of language, and the creation of a seemingly objective narrative that serves a particular agenda are all hallmarks of sophisticated propaganda.
The discussion of costs in the Competition Tribunal’s judgment is equally skewed. Maughan gloats over the rejection of Sekunjalo’s interim application but glides past the Tribunal’s refusal to award punitive costs to Nedbank – an outcome that undercuts her gleeful narrative. Meanwhile, the still-looming main case, in which Nedbank’s role in corporate collusion stands front and centre, is only faintly alluded to.
The core question is whether Maughan’s unwavering slant towards the banks reflects her own ideological alignment or a wholesale inability to shake off deep-seated, possibly racial biases. Either way, her recent piece is a sharp reminder that I was right when characterising her writing style as similar to Nazi Propaganda. Even when the Competition Commission revealed blatant corporate collusion, she continued to smother the truth using shrewd spin, selective reporting, and conveniently placed distractions.
* Edmond Phiri is an independent writer, analyst and political commentator.
** The view expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.