![tumisole's tweet photo. #CountryDuty
Today, the Constitutional Court delivered a judgment on the #RandManipulation judgment.
Our #CountryDuty Chief Legal Strategist @diggiebongz has been following the matter closely and has gladly done a summary on what the judgment says & what it means:
1. What Happened
On 30 June 2026, a unanimous Constitutional Court (Rogers J, nine judges concurring) brought down the curtain on nearly a decade of litigation over allegations that 18-plus global and local banks colluded between 2007 and 2013 to manipulate the USDIZAR exchange rate — South Africa's long-running "forex cartel" case.
The case began with a Competition Commission complaint initiated in April 2015, amended in August 2016, and referred to the Competition Tribunal in February 2017 alleging a single overarching conspiracy (SOC) to fix prices and divide markets in contravention of section 4(1)(b) of the Competition Act.
The judgment resolves three consolidated matters: BNP Paribas's appeal (CCT 25/24), Credit Suisse Securities's appeal (CCT 27/24), and the Commission's own appeal together with HSBC Bank plo's cross-appeal (CCT 30/24). The scorecard is mixed and bank-specific — this was never a case where "the banks won" or "the Commission won" as a block.
2. Why Most Banks Walked Free — The Pleading Problem
This was, at its core, not a trial on the facts of whether banks colluded — it was a fight over whether the Commission's papers were good enough to put each bank on trial at all. South African competition procedure allows respondents to except to (challenge the legal sufficiency of) a referral before a single day of evidence
is led.
The Commission lost most of these battles because its “superseding affidavit” — filed after an earlier 2020 CAC ruling (CAC I) required it to plead with more particularity — repeated the same broad-brush
allegations bank after bank, rather than pleading bank-specific conduct sufficient to found a cause of action under section 4(1)(b).
[ANALYSIS]
The pattern that emerges across the judgment is consistent: where the Commission could point to a named trader, a specific chatroom, or a specific platform incident tying a bank into the alleged single
overarching conspiracy, the case survived. Where the allegations amounted to guilt by association — a bank's trader appearing in the same Reuters quote pattern as other banks, without more — the case did not.
JPM Bank and SAI are the exceptions that prove the rule: their revival turned on the Constitutional Court finding the CAC had committed an identifiable legal error (as opposed to a mere factual judgment call), which is the narrow gate through which an appeal to the apex court must pass in this kind of case.
“This Court's jurisdiction is not engaged by a complaint that the CAC should have assessed the
facts differently or even that the CAC got the facts plainly wrong.”
Rogers J, on why most of the Commission's appeals failed (paraphrased from para 283 of the judgment)
READ OUR SUMMARY BELOW: 👇🏿](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HME97u3XsAA5ycx.jpg)
![tumisole's tweet photo. #CountryDuty
Today, the Constitutional Court delivered a judgment on the #RandManipulation judgment.
Our #CountryDuty Chief Legal Strategist @diggiebongz has been following the matter closely and has gladly done a summary on what the judgment says & what it means:
1. What Happened
On 30 June 2026, a unanimous Constitutional Court (Rogers J, nine judges concurring) brought down the curtain on nearly a decade of litigation over allegations that 18-plus global and local banks colluded between 2007 and 2013 to manipulate the USDIZAR exchange rate — South Africa's long-running "forex cartel" case.
The case began with a Competition Commission complaint initiated in April 2015, amended in August 2016, and referred to the Competition Tribunal in February 2017 alleging a single overarching conspiracy (SOC) to fix prices and divide markets in contravention of section 4(1)(b) of the Competition Act.
The judgment resolves three consolidated matters: BNP Paribas's appeal (CCT 25/24), Credit Suisse Securities's appeal (CCT 27/24), and the Commission's own appeal together with HSBC Bank plo's cross-appeal (CCT 30/24). The scorecard is mixed and bank-specific — this was never a case where "the banks won" or "the Commission won" as a block.
2. Why Most Banks Walked Free — The Pleading Problem
This was, at its core, not a trial on the facts of whether banks colluded — it was a fight over whether the Commission's papers were good enough to put each bank on trial at all. South African competition procedure allows respondents to except to (challenge the legal sufficiency of) a referral before a single day of evidence
is led.
The Commission lost most of these battles because its “superseding affidavit” — filed after an earlier 2020 CAC ruling (CAC I) required it to plead with more particularity — repeated the same broad-brush
allegations bank after bank, rather than pleading bank-specific conduct sufficient to found a cause of action under section 4(1)(b).
[ANALYSIS]
The pattern that emerges across the judgment is consistent: where the Commission could point to a named trader, a specific chatroom, or a specific platform incident tying a bank into the alleged single
overarching conspiracy, the case survived. Where the allegations amounted to guilt by association — a bank's trader appearing in the same Reuters quote pattern as other banks, without more — the case did not.
JPM Bank and SAI are the exceptions that prove the rule: their revival turned on the Constitutional Court finding the CAC had committed an identifiable legal error (as opposed to a mere factual judgment call), which is the narrow gate through which an appeal to the apex court must pass in this kind of case.
“This Court's jurisdiction is not engaged by a complaint that the CAC should have assessed the
facts differently or even that the CAC got the facts plainly wrong.”
Rogers J, on why most of the Commission's appeals failed (paraphrased from para 283 of the judgment)
READ OUR SUMMARY BELOW: 👇🏿](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HME97u2WMAAhL0s.jpg)
Olivia
Online
Andile AK
@askhumalo
Think.Plan.Act.
Joined October 2009
435 Following
180 Followers
2.4K Posts
@MT_Ntsonda Ihlaxo
IN 2026 A MAN WHO CALLED HIMSELF A TIME TRAVELER SAT DOWN IN FRONT OF A CAMERA AND TOLD THE WORLD WHAT WAS COMING.He didn't say he predicted it.He said he had lived through it.He described 2030 in devastating detail. The climate collapse. The AI-controlled governments. The futuristic megacities rising while others disappear underwater.Then he did something stranger.He claimed footage existed from decades ahead. Rivers that no longer exist. Food shortages that haven't started yet. Cartels that will vanish overnight.The interview barely ran a few minutes.Thousands have watched it since.He cut it short with a warning: "I can't stay here long, it's a huge risk."Now people are going back to it, line by line, checking which parts of his timeline have quietly started to come true.
@News24 Unesibindi!
@_Hybreed_ Wamthola
Who to follow
Mthandeni
@Mthandenimaling
Every generation has the call to answer. The question has been asked and in our lifetime we must answer.
Amber's Nanny🕯🇿🏴☠️😘🌷☠🇿🇦🇮🇹
@MaSbhene_27462
God is never wrong!!!🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏Orlando Pirates and Real Madrid #UpTheBucs #HalaMadrid!!! UNISA Alumni
UNISA graduate!!!
Katleho_47
@KatlehoMokone47
attitude formidable 🤗, Big heart for ART ❤️. #bloombergbusinessweek 🏴☠️ &MANcity
Black Coffee exposing the system in 1 minute.🔥❤️🇿🇦‼️
#CountryDuty
Today, the Constitutional Court delivered a judgment on the #RandManipulation judgment.
Our #CountryDuty Chief Legal Strategist @diggiebongz has been following the matter closely and has gladly done a summary on what the judgment says & what it means:
1. What Happened
On 30 June 2026, a unanimous Constitutional Court (Rogers J, nine judges concurring) brought down the curtain on nearly a decade of litigation over allegations that 18-plus global and local banks colluded between 2007 and 2013 to manipulate the USDIZAR exchange rate — South Africa's long-running "forex cartel" case.
The case began with a Competition Commission complaint initiated in April 2015, amended in August 2016, and referred to the Competition Tribunal in February 2017 alleging a single overarching conspiracy (SOC) to fix prices and divide markets in contravention of section 4(1)(b) of the Competition Act.
The judgment resolves three consolidated matters: BNP Paribas's appeal (CCT 25/24), Credit Suisse Securities's appeal (CCT 27/24), and the Commission's own appeal together with HSBC Bank plo's cross-appeal (CCT 30/24). The scorecard is mixed and bank-specific — this was never a case where "the banks won" or "the Commission won" as a block.
2. Why Most Banks Walked Free — The Pleading Problem
This was, at its core, not a trial on the facts of whether banks colluded — it was a fight over whether the Commission's papers were good enough to put each bank on trial at all. South African competition procedure allows respondents to except to (challenge the legal sufficiency of) a referral before a single day of evidence
is led.
The Commission lost most of these battles because its “superseding affidavit” — filed after an earlier 2020 CAC ruling (CAC I) required it to plead with more particularity — repeated the same broad-brush
allegations bank after bank, rather than pleading bank-specific conduct sufficient to found a cause of action under section 4(1)(b).
[ANALYSIS]
The pattern that emerges across the judgment is consistent: where the Commission could point to a named trader, a specific chatroom, or a specific platform incident tying a bank into the alleged single
overarching conspiracy, the case survived. Where the allegations amounted to guilt by association — a bank's trader appearing in the same Reuters quote pattern as other banks, without more — the case did not.
JPM Bank and SAI are the exceptions that prove the rule: their revival turned on the Constitutional Court finding the CAC had committed an identifiable legal error (as opposed to a mere factual judgment call), which is the narrow gate through which an appeal to the apex court must pass in this kind of case.
“This Court's jurisdiction is not engaged by a complaint that the CAC should have assessed the
facts differently or even that the CAC got the facts plainly wrong.”
Rogers J, on why most of the Commission's appeals failed (paraphrased from para 283 of the judgment)
READ OUR SUMMARY BELOW: 👇🏿
![tumisole's tweet photo. #CountryDuty
Today, the Constitutional Court delivered a judgment on the #RandManipulation judgment.
Our #CountryDuty Chief Legal Strategist @diggiebongz has been following the matter closely and has gladly done a summary on what the judgment says & what it means:
1. What Happened
On 30 June 2026, a unanimous Constitutional Court (Rogers J, nine judges concurring) brought down the curtain on nearly a decade of litigation over allegations that 18-plus global and local banks colluded between 2007 and 2013 to manipulate the USDIZAR exchange rate — South Africa's long-running "forex cartel" case.
The case began with a Competition Commission complaint initiated in April 2015, amended in August 2016, and referred to the Competition Tribunal in February 2017 alleging a single overarching conspiracy (SOC) to fix prices and divide markets in contravention of section 4(1)(b) of the Competition Act.
The judgment resolves three consolidated matters: BNP Paribas's appeal (CCT 25/24), Credit Suisse Securities's appeal (CCT 27/24), and the Commission's own appeal together with HSBC Bank plo's cross-appeal (CCT 30/24). The scorecard is mixed and bank-specific — this was never a case where "the banks won" or "the Commission won" as a block.
2. Why Most Banks Walked Free — The Pleading Problem
This was, at its core, not a trial on the facts of whether banks colluded — it was a fight over whether the Commission's papers were good enough to put each bank on trial at all. South African competition procedure allows respondents to except to (challenge the legal sufficiency of) a referral before a single day of evidence
is led.
The Commission lost most of these battles because its “superseding affidavit” — filed after an earlier 2020 CAC ruling (CAC I) required it to plead with more particularity — repeated the same broad-brush
allegations bank after bank, rather than pleading bank-specific conduct sufficient to found a cause of action under section 4(1)(b).
[ANALYSIS]
The pattern that emerges across the judgment is consistent: where the Commission could point to a named trader, a specific chatroom, or a specific platform incident tying a bank into the alleged single
overarching conspiracy, the case survived. Where the allegations amounted to guilt by association — a bank's trader appearing in the same Reuters quote pattern as other banks, without more — the case did not.
JPM Bank and SAI are the exceptions that prove the rule: their revival turned on the Constitutional Court finding the CAC had committed an identifiable legal error (as opposed to a mere factual judgment call), which is the narrow gate through which an appeal to the apex court must pass in this kind of case.
“This Court's jurisdiction is not engaged by a complaint that the CAC should have assessed the
facts differently or even that the CAC got the facts plainly wrong.”
Rogers J, on why most of the Commission's appeals failed (paraphrased from para 283 of the judgment)
READ OUR SUMMARY BELOW: 👇🏿](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HME97vFX0AAiBfF.jpg)
Are you supporting SOUTH AFRICA? 🇿🇦 💬
@TMCrazzzy You don't kill your first born when you get a second child all good memories do come exist....including the bad ones
@Ndlombango Mtakasisi
@VillageGuluva Mtakasisi!
Thierry Henry on South Africa qualifying for the World Cup knockout stage for the first time ever:
🗣️ “This is why we love football. Tonight isn't just a victory for South Africa. Tonight is history. An entire nation has waited for a moment like this, and now it finally belongs to them.”
“When the final whistle blew, you could see the emotion everywhere. The players, the staff, the fans. These are the moments people remember for the rest of their lives.”
“Many people didn't believe South Africa would get this far. They were underestimated before the tournament started, but they kept fighting, kept believing, and now they have achieved something no South African team has ever achieved before.”
“Look at those players. Some of them grew up dreaming about representing their country on the biggest stage. Tonight they didn't just represent South Africa they made history for it.”
“What makes this story beautiful is that nobody can take it away from them. Years from now, people will still talk about the team that broke the barrier and carried South Africa into the knockout rounds for the very first time.”
“This is bigger than football. Somewhere in South Africa, young boys and girls are watching this team and believing that anything is possible.”
“South Korea fought hard, but tonight belonged to South Africa. Every tackle, every save, every sprint was for a place in history, and they earned it.”
“The celebrations will be unforgettable because these players know exactly what they have done. They haven't just won a match. They have given an entire country a moment of pride.”
“When people talk about the greatest stories of this World Cup, South Africa's name deserves to be part of that conversation.”
“Tonight, millions of South Africans will go to sleep smiling. Not because their team won 1-0, but because their nation has achieved something it had never achieved before.”
@PereEgbi Watchout for Bafana Bafana
@ChrisExcel102 Solid..100 mshana kamalume!
Sithole Redemption Arc
The boy told them now he showed them. 🔥🔥🔥🇿🇦🇿🇦🇿🇦🇿🇦
https://t.co/wEQUvWTXLv
Germany lost their first game in 1954 & won the World Cup. 🇩🇪🏆 Spain lost their first game in 2010 & won the World Cup. 🇪🇸🏆Argentina lost the first game in 2022 & won the World Cup
. 🇦🇷🏆 South Africa 🇿🇦 lost their first game in 2026! Are you thinking what I’m thinking?
@JacintaNgobese FIFA will regret playing us at 3am while our grannies are fresh and active shem😭😭😭
@theberneese South Africa....4 points
Trends for you
Most Popular Users
Elon Musk 
@elonmusk
241.7M followers
Barack Obama
@barackobama
119M followers
Cristiano Ronaldo
@cristiano
114.4M followers
Donald J. Trump
@realdonaldtrump
111.9M followers
Narendra Modi
@narendramodi
107.2M followers
Rihanna
@rihanna
98.7M followers
NASA
@nasa
92.4M followers
Justin Bieber
@justinbieber
91.8M followers
KATY PERRY
@katyperry
90M followers
Taylor Swift
@taylorswift13
83.9M followers
Lady Gaga
@ladygaga
75.4M followers
Virat Kohli
@imvkohli
73.3M followers
Kim Kardashian
@kimkardashian
70.9M followers
YouTube
@youtube
68.8M followers
Neymar Jr
@neymarjr
66.4M followers
Bill Gates
@billgates
65.2M followers
Selena Gomez
@selenagomez
63M followers
The Ellen Show
@theellenshow
62.3M followers
CNN
@cnn
61.8M followers
X
@x
60.7M followers