Nedbank’s announcement that its COO, Mfundo Nkuhlu, will take early retirement at year-end after more than a decade in the role and that the position will subsequently be made redundant is more than an executive departure.
The COO is not an insignificant position. The role has historically been highly valued, with remuneration broadly comparable to that of the CEO and on par with the CFO. In 2025, Nkuhlu’s total earnings were 2.4% higher than those of CEO Jason Quinn, largely because of vested short- and long-term incentives.
More importantly, the COO is responsible for translating the CEO’s strategy into enterprise-wide execution and providing a single point of accountability for operational execution. Its removal therefore raises a question beyond operational efficiency: when leadership changes, who decides what should be preserved, what should change and who is legitimate to carry the institution forward?
This is the often-overlooked governance dimension of succession. Succession is usually framed as a talent question: identify the person with the competence to do the job and appoint them. Competence is essential, but it is not the whole question.
Succession is also about trust, institutional purpose, continuity and legacy. Every incoming leader inherits an institution shaped by the decisions, relationships, culture and strategy of those who came before. They can preserve that legacy, adapt it or deliberately move away from it. Each choice affects the institution’s future.
In Nedbank’s case, the removal of the COO position can be read as more than an operating-model decision. It signals the end of the Mike Brown era and the beginning of the Quinn era, potentially reflecting a different approach to executive accountability and organisational design.
The same tension is visible in institutions where succession is explicitly tied to legacy.
Consider the succession of the Zulu monarch. Prince Misuzulu was identified as successor by Queen Mantfombi Dlamini Zulu, who had assumed the role of regent after the death of King Goodwill Zwelithini. Her written indication that Prince Misuzulu should succeed was subsequently accepted through processes within the royal family, and President Cyril Ramaphosa formally recognised him as king in 2022. The succession was contested by other members of the royal family and ultimately tested in court. The Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed the challenges and upheld the lawfulness of Misuzulu’s identification and recognition.
In Nedbank’s case, the removal of the COO position can be read as more than an operating-model decision. It signals the end of the Mike Brown era and the beginning of the Quinn era, potentially reflecting a different approach to executive accountability and organisational design.
At the heart of that dispute was not simply the question of who was most qualified to occupy the throne. It was a question of authority, legitimacy and who had the right to determine who would carry the institution and legacy forward.
This matters because governance debates sometimes assume that merit is a universal and self-evident basis for succession. It is not. What constitutes legitimate succession depends partly on the nature and purpose of the institution.
Family businesses illustrate this particularly well. A founder may deliberately prepare a family member to take over because the business is an economic enterprise and a family legacy. Ensuring that the legacy continues into the next generation can therefore be a legitimate part of responsible stewardship. Especially when the appointment has been made according to its governing rules.
The same principle applies in politics. Cadre deployment has become associated with the appointment of people because of political loyalty rather than competence. Yet loyalty and competence are not inherently incompatible. A person can be committed to a political party’s ideals and still be capable of competently managing the institution to which they are deployed.
The governance questions should therefore be more rigorous. What is the person being appointed to achieve? What are the applicable rules? Who is accountable for the appointment? What demonstrates competence? And does the appointment serve the institution or primarily those making the appointment? This is where succession can become either legitimate stewardship or patronage.
The distinction is not simply merit versus loyalty. It is legitimate succession versus arbitrary succession. Legitimate succession can include competence, trust, continuity, institutional identity and legacy. What matters is that these considerations are transparent, defensible and consistent with the institution’s governing framework.
When MK party president Jacob Zuma appoints his son Duduzane Zuma as deputy president, the decision immediately raises questions about political inheritance. Those who regard the decision as undemocratic should first ask what governance rules govern the party and what its internal purposes and structures require. A political organisation cannot automatically be judged according to the governance model of another organisation simply because that model is more familiar.
Ultimately, succession is not simply about identifying the person who comes next. It is about deciding what comes next. That is the governance of legacy.
• Dr Vilakazi is an academic and organisational development practitioner whose work focuses on how governance and power are exercised in institutions, particularly where they are misunderstood and misapplied.
Business Day
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.