Anglo American's slow exit from its South African investments: A silent crisis

and with I am one of the members as a retiree. So, any decision made by Anglo affects me personally. No doubt therefore I have a personal interest in this matter well beyond a broad consciousness responsibility. So, my unease here is both personal and patriotic. I cannot claim to know much about matters finance, however, I have booked enough to be uncomfortable when there is skin irritation. My skin is itchy. My natural response will therefore be to scratch.

- PALI LEHOHLA

SOUTH Africa remains quiet as Anglo American exits South Africa, says the author. SUPPLIED

For now, I am reminded of the activist leader by the name of Brian Molefe, now a MKP member of parliament. He was visible during his tenure as the chief executive of PIC. He was an activist of note. I asked ChatGPT what Molefe would have done? ChatGPT did not disappoint, it captured what Brian would have done with clinical precision. It said ChatGPT Brian Molefe, as CEO of the PIC - which manages South Africa's government employee pensions-was known for activism in investment, especially regarding protecting public funds and influencing corporate behaviour. PIC's approach under him often involved using its stakes to influence companies' decisions, rather than passively investing.

If Anglo American, holding 7% of government pension funds via PIC, decided to move offshore (i.e., shift profits, assets, or headquarters outside South Africa), Molefe's likely response, based on his activism record, could have included:

1. Engagement and Pressure: PIC under Molefe often engaged directly with company boards. He would probably have pushed Anglo to justify the offshore move, highlighting potential negative effects on South African economic growth, job creation, and tax revenues.

2. Voting Power: With 7%, PIC had significant influence. Molefe could have used shareholder voting rights to oppose or influence the offshore strategy.