The changing landscape of regulation in Africa has seen a number of African countries adopting competition legislation, with wider regional developments like the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) spurring a rise in litigation in the field. The Competition Law Centre of Expertise at integrated energy and chemical company Sasol – the second largest company by market value in South Africa after Standard Bank – is a team of three competition lawyers operating within the legal, intellectual property and regulatory services function.

Led by senior manager Natasha Pharo and supported by Heather Mangwiro and Xolani Nsizwane, the team provides competition law advice and develops competition law compliance initiatives for all business units within the Sasol group of companies, both locally and internationally. Creating the correct balance when it comes to competition law awareness is, says Pharo, a big part of the challenge the team has faced.

‘The ideal situation is having employees who are aware of competition laws and who operate within the guidance provided to them or know when to come and seek additional advice. Challenges arise when employees become too afraid to engage in normal business practices for fear of contravening the competition legislation, [meaning] projects never gain traction, or are either are not aware of competition law or believe that the guidelines are not applicable [to them]’.

To ensure that the correct balance is struck the team has worked hard to raise awareness and build trust with Sasol’s global functions. They provide yearly competition law training to the entire Sasol Group and have developed a series of videos to help staff understand compliance issues. The team was instrumental in challenging the first fully litigated excessive pricing case in South Africa, a South African Competition Commission dispute dating back to 2007. The Competition Tribunal found against Sasol Polymers in 2014 but, following an appeal from Sasol’s lawyers, the decision was overturned in 2015. The case has set a precedent in excessive pricing jurisprudence in South Africa.