In the end, what matters most is transparency and truth. Despite the relentless media campaign, AYO has not been found guilty of any wrongdoing, says the writer.
By Sipho Tshabalala
In the chaotic world of media, where narratives are spun and reputations are smeared, truth often becomes the first casualty. A perfect example of this is Tim Cohen’s recent piece in the Daily Maverick, where he launches yet another factually unfounded and blatantly biased attack on AYO Technology Solutions. It’s not just that Cohen fails to present any tangible proof of corruption or wrongdoing, but rather, the glaring omissions and innuendos that paint a picture of an agenda more focused on preserving the status quo than reporting facts.
Let’s get one thing straight: AYO Technology Solutions is a black-owned business that has become a symbol of transformation and success in South Africa. It should be celebrated, not targeted. So why then does Cohen insist on singling out AYO, especially when the Public Investment Corporation (PIC) has suffered far greater financial losses in other investments? The numbers don’t lie—R9.3 billion was lost in the Lancaster and Steinhoff debacles, yet you don’t see Cohen writing damning exposés about those. Why is that? Is it because AYO’s success challenges the deeply entrenched interests that Cohen’s narrative seems designed to defend? It certainly appears that way.
One of the cornerstones of Cohen’s argument against AYO is his reliance on the Mpati Commission’s recommendations as supposed “proof” of AYO’s malfeasance. But here’s the problem: the Mpati Commission wasn’t designed to make judgments on guilt or innocence. As Judge Lex Mpati, who chaired the commission, clearly stated, “It is clear from the statutory framework governing the PIC Commission that its primary task was to investigate... Investigation is distinct from adjudication.”
That distinction is everything. Judge Mpati’s own words undermine Cohen’s use of the commission as some sort of smoking gun. The commission’s task was investigative, not judicial. It wasn’t there to pass final judgement. As Mpati himself emphasised, “Any conclusions that it may have reached were not binding on anyone, and its task was essentially advisory in nature.” In simpler terms, the commission recommended further investigations, but it didn’t find AYO guilty of anything. No legal conclusions were drawn, and Cohen’s attempts to use the commission’s findings as evidence of wrongdoing are simply misleading.
Cohen’s portrayal of the Government Employees Pension Fund (GEPF) as a helpless victim at the mercy of AYO is equally dishonest. Judge Mpati explicitly stated that the recommendations called for “further investigations to ascertain the best interventions” by the GEPF, PIC, and the Government. Recommendations, not orders. Investigations, not verdicts. It’s entirely possible that further investigation could exonerate AYO entirely. But of course, Cohen conveniently ignores this possibility.
Among the numerous inaccuracies in Cohen’s article, one stands out: his claim that AYO is an “unlisted” portfolio. This is simply false. AYO is listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE), and its operations are transparent. Cohen’s deliberate misrepresentation of such a basic fact is indicative of a larger issue: the agenda-driven journalism that has plagued AYO since its listing.
Despite the media’s constant attacks, the reality remains: no court of law has found AYO guilty of corruption or fraud. Let’s be clear—Tim Cohen has offered no proof of any criminal conduct, and yet, the media continues its relentless campaign against AYO. Why? Could it be that a successful black-owned company in a sector dominated by established players poses a threat to the interests they wish to protect?
And here’s another fact Cohen overlooks: AYO has paid millions in dividends to the PIC since its initial investment. The company’s subsidiaries continue to perform well, despite the constant media barrage. Hardly the behaviour of a company engaging in fraudulent activity, wouldn’t you say?
Cohen’s article fits into a broader pattern of biased reporting, one that has long targeted Dr. Iqbal Survé and his companies, including AYO. Media outlets like the Daily Maverick have consistently driven down AYO’s share price through sensationalist journalism, only to then lament the decline they’ve helped to cause. What we’re seeing here is not balanced reporting, but rather a deliberate effort to damage AYO’s reputation.
And let’s not forget the words of Judge Mpati: “If further investigations are implemented, they may exonerate any individual or entity mentioned in the report.” Yet, instead of waiting for due process, the media has jumped to conclusions, convicting AYO in the court of public opinion long before any real evidence has been presented.
In the end, what matters most is transparency and truth. Despite the relentless media campaign, AYO has not been found guilty of any wrongdoing. The Mpati Commission’s report was investigative, not judicial, and its recommendations were merely that—recommendations. If further investigations are undertaken, AYO could very well be exonerated, but that’s not the narrative Cohen or his media counterparts are interested in.
AYO deserves to be judged on its merits, not on the basis of unsubstantiated accusations and agenda-driven journalism. It’s time for the media to move beyond sensationalism and stick to the facts. Our democracy depends on it.
* Sipho Tshabalala is an independent writer, commentator and analyst.
** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Independent Media or IOL.