MICHAEL AVERY: Tau tosses a lifeline to sanity over Vodacom-Maziv merger

Imagine your house is on fire, but instead of grabbing a hose you decide to argue about whether the colour of the water bucket is inclusive enough.

Welcome to the current state of competition regulation in SA, where the Competition Commission and Competition Tribunal seems more interested in ideological purity than in actually fostering economic growth. 

Enter trade, industry & competition minister Parks Tau, who by challenging the tribunal’s decision to block the Vodacom-Maziv merger has thrown a much-needed lifeline to economic sanity. We’ve become so desensitised to bureaucratic navel-gazing that Tau’s intervention seemed scarcely believable at first, like spotting a sensible economic idea in a Blade Nzimande speech. 

It seemed obvious that the commission and tribunal’s decision to block the Vodacom-Maziv deal was economic malpractice. Here’s a merger that would have rolled out fibre to 1-million homes in underserved areas, created 10,000 jobs, and established a R300m fund for small businesses. Yet in their infinite wisdom, our competition watchdogs decided that the deal posed some vaguely defined “concentration risks”. 

Risks to what, exactly? Economic progress? Connectivity in Alexandra? Or perhaps the ideological utopia they envision, in which every market is perfectly deconcentrated, even if it means zero investment and a stagnant economy?

 Fourteen-billion rand in private investment in a country screaming for capital should have been met with cheers, not the regulatory equivalent of a wet blanket. 

And then there’s the tribunal’s glacial pace. It has been over a month since it blocked the Vodacom-Maziv merger, and we’re all still waiting for the reasons. Perhaps it is chiselling its justifications on stone tablets, or maybe it is hoping we will forget the decision altogether. 

This isn’t just an annoyance; it’s a flashing neon sign that reads, “invest elsewhere”. Businesses need certainty, not Kafkaesque delays that leave them hanging in limbo for months or years. These delays don’t just stall individual deals; they stall the entire economy. And for what? To agonise over the ideological purity of mergers while the rest of the world moves on? 

This isn’t just about Vodacom and Maziv. It’s part of a broader, deeply misguided anti-concentration orthodoxy. The Competition Commission’s concentration tracker might as well be titled “how to kill an economy in 10 easy steps”. Its underlying thesis is that big firms are inherently bad and that markets must be deconcentrated at all costs — facts, evidence and economic logic be damned. 

Take the Canal+ bid for MultiChoice. Here’s a global player willing to invest in a local champion, helping it compete with the likes of Netflix and Amazon. But no, the commission and tribunal would rather see MultiChoice go it alone, presumably on the principle that drowning is preferable to being rescued by a bigger boat. 

Meanwhile, companies brave enough to pursue multiple deals, such as Sanlam, find themselves accused of “creeping mergers”, as if planning for long-term growth is some kind of corporate crime. The message is clear: in SA, ambition is suspect, and success is punishable.

Against this backdrop of regulatory lunacy Tau’s intervention is a breath of fresh air — or maybe a gulp of oxygen for an economy gasping under regulatory suffocation. By appealing against the Vodacom-Maziv decision Tau isn’t just challenging one bad ruling; he’s challenging the entire mindset that produced it. 

It’s about time. The government of national unity has promised to reignite economic growth, and that requires a regulatory environment that encourages investment, not one that chases it away with ideological dog whistles. Tau’s move signals a willingness to prioritise pragmatism over dogma, a concept that feels almost revolutionary in the current climate. 

Mergers are not the enemy. They’re how businesses grow, innovate and survive in competitive markets. They bring fresh ideas, new technologies and much-needed investment. They allow companies to shed noncore assets and focus on what they do best. 

Take Tiger Brands, which recently offloaded its Elizabeth Anne baby care range to refocus on its core business. Or Sanlam’s merger with Ninety One, which is creating a global asset management powerhouse. These are not acts of corporate greed; they’re strategic moves designed to drive growth and create value. 

Yet on the Competition Commission’s watch these benefits are overshadowed by regulatory paranoia. It seems to believe mergers are nothing more than a conspiracy by “nasty capitalists” to hoard wealth. Never mind that these capitalists include government employees via the Public Investment Corporation or that mergers often preserve value for black investors and small businesses. 

The kicker is that while our regulators play ideological games global giants such as Netflix and Amazon are eating our lunch. They’re not shackled by anti-concentration orthodoxy or endless delays; they’re innovating, expanding and winning market share. 

SA doesn’t need more ideological purity; it needs growth, jobs and investment. Tau’s intervention is a step in the right direction, but it must be the start of a broader reform effort. The commission needs to get back to basics, ensuring competitive markets and preventing monopolies, and not serving as a gatekeeper for social policy. 

And the tribunal? It needs to pick up the pace. If it can’t provide timely decisions perhaps it should consider merging with a body that can. 

• Avery, a financial journalist and broadcaster, produces BDTV’s Business Watch. Contact him at Badger@businesslive.co.za.