Sipho Pityana is to petition the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) directly after the Pretoria High Court declined to grant him leave to appeal its March 2026 judgment, which upheld Absa Group’s decision to remove him from its board in November 2021. The long-running legal dispute — now in its fourth year — has become one of the most closely watched corporate governance cases in South African banking history, raising unresolved questions about the Prudential Authority’s (PA) informal involvement in board-level succession decisions at major financial institutions.
Pityana had been widely regarded as the preferred candidate to succeed Wendy Lucas-Bull as Absa chairman. That succession was derailed, according to court papers, when the PA’s deputy governor Kuben Naidoo approached former Absa chief executive Maria Ramos to enquire about the circumstances surrounding Pityana’s resignation from AngloGold Ashanti, where he had previously served as board chairman. Pityana faced allegations of sexual harassment during his time at AngloGold — allegations he has consistently and categorically denied.
The central legal question has never been whether those allegations were true or false. Pityana’s case rests on the argument that the PA followed an informal process to assess his fitness for the Absa chairmanship without affording him notice, access to the information being considered, or any opportunity to respond. He contends this amounted to a denial of procedural fairness.
READ – Absa Chair Saga Exposes Flawed Vetting
In a separate judgment delivered in June 2025, the Pretoria High Court found in Pityana’s favour on precisely that point — declaring that the PA had exceeded its powers under the Banks Act by engaging in the informal process. Both Absa and the PA are appealing that ruling, making the legal landscape bifurcated: Pityana won on the PA’s conduct but lost on his removal from the Absa board itself.
The March 2026 judgment concerned the latter. Judge Petrus van Niekerk, reviewing Pityana’s application for leave to appeal, found that the grounds advanced by his legal team amounted to a contention that the court had misapplied legal principles — specifically that it should have conducted a full merits review of the removal decision rather than applying a rationality test. The court rejected this framing and declined to grant leave.
Pityana had earlier abandoned his claims for reinstatement and compensation, choosing instead to pursue a declaration that Absa’s action was unlawful. Absa argued this rendered the matter moot — without a live remedy being sought, there was no justiciable dispute for the court to determine. Judge Van Niekerk agreed, stating the case should have been dismissed on mootness grounds once Pityana withdrew his claims for relief.
The judge added that even if leave were granted, the SCA would likely decline to entertain the merits of an appeal. Pityana’s legal team disagrees and has indicated papers will be filed imminently.
The case carries implications beyond the individuals involved. South Africa’s banking sector operates under the PA’s fit and proper regime, which governs who may serve as a director or senior officer of a registered bank. The PA has broad discretion under the Banks Act to assess candidates, but the June 2025 judgment suggested that discretion is not unlimited and cannot be exercised through informal channels without basic procedural protections. If that ruling survives the PA’s appeal, it could meaningfully constrain how the regulator engages with bank boards on succession matters going forward.
Absa has declined to comment beyond court filings. The PA has not issued a public statement on the litigation since the June 2025 ruling. Pityana remains a prominent figure in South African business and civil society and has continued to engage publicly on governance and transformation issues throughout the proceedings.