South Africa’s rand exchange rate was allegedly rigged for seven years. That allegation, first lodged by the Competition Commission in 2015, cleared a major legal hurdle on Tuesday, 30 June, when the Constitutional Court ruled that the case can proceed to substantive proceedings at the Competition Tribunal of South Africa.
The ruling matters to ordinary South Africans because currency manipulation, if proven, distorts the financial conditions that shape import prices, borrowing costs, and the everyday cost of living. The case covers alleged coordinated conduct between 2007 and 2013, a period during which the rand’s value against the US dollar was, according to the Commission, influenced by traders acting in concert across multiple institutions.
Six banks remain in the dock: Investec, BNP Paribas, JPMorgan Chase & Co, JPMorgan Chase Bank NA, Standard Americas Incorporated, and HSBC Bank. Justice Owen Rogers, writing for the court, rejected several of the Commission’s arguments that had been upheld at a lower level, resulting in the removal of numerous institutions from the original complaint. Among those who successfully secured exclusion are two major African lenders, FirstRand and the Standard Bank of South Africa.
That removal is a setback for the Commission’s broader enforcement ambitions. The regulator has not yet issued a detailed response to the judgment, saying only that it is still reviewing the ruling and will provide a comprehensive response at a later date.
The case has already navigated two separate rounds of proceedings at both the Tribunal and the Competition Appeal Court before reaching the Constitutional Court. That extended legal journey reflects the difficulty of proving collusion across multiple jurisdictions and the technical complexity inherent in forex manipulation claims. The narrowing of defendants at this stage signals that the court found sufficient grounds to advance claims against the remaining six banks, but was not persuaded that all originally named institutions bore equal exposure to the allegations.
Meanwhile, the Commission’s enforcement calendar is not limited to the forex matter. Last month the regulator referred a separate complaint against Adcock Ingram Critical Care to the Competition Tribunal, centring on allegations of excessive pricing in the renal dialysis market. That referral signals continued regulatory attention to competition violations across multiple sectors of the South African economy, not only financial services.
The forex case carries weight that extends well beyond the banking sector. It tests whether South Africa’s competition authorities can pursue complex, cross-border cases to a conclusion and establish accountability for conduct that may have distorted currency markets accessible to every participant in the economy. The evidentiary standards the Tribunal ultimately applies to claims of coordinated trading activity could shape how regulators approach similar allegations for years to come. Whether the Commission’s reduced but still active case against six institutions is enough to deliver that accountability remains the open question heading into Tribunal proceedings.