KwaZulu-Natal Provincial Police Commissioner Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi testified that Richards Bay Minerals (RBM) benefited from political “protection” through contacts in the highest offices.
Brands are not built on logos and slogans alone. They are built — and broken — on perception. The unfolding revelations at the Madlanga commission, where KwaZulu-Natal police commissioner General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi testified that Richards Bay Minerals (RBM) benefited from political “protection” through contacts in the highest offices, underscore this reality.
In the court of law, these are allegations. The truth of these allegations will ultimately be tested through evidence and due process. Yet in branding, perception often lands faster than proof. A brand does not wait for verdicts; it lives in the public imagination. And right now, RBM’s brand finds itself walking a perilous line, framed not as a miner of minerals, but as a miner of political favour.
A corporate brand is a fragile ecosystem of trust built with employees, communities, investors and the state. RBM’s brand covenant, like that of any major miner, is premised on promises of stability, job creation, ethical operation and meaningful community development. Allegations of high-level patronage shatter this covenant. They subtly re-frame RBM’s success not as a product of operational excellence and good governance, but as a benefit accrued from backroom deals and political favouritism.
The fallout is a multi-stakeholder crisis. For the communities of Richards Bay, long sceptical of the cozy relationship between capital and the state, this testimony is a vindication of their deepest suspicions. The brand is no longer seen as the benefactor but as an extension of a corrupt system, a player in the very network that may have failed them. This perception fuels social unrest and dissolves the goodwill essential for smooth operations.
For RBM’s employees, the scandal brings not just uncertainty but stigma. The pride of working for a major industrial player is tarnished by the whisper that its stability was politically engineered, not earned. Internally, morale risks collapse if the brand they represent is publicly painted as complicit. A poisoned chalice does not only spill outward — it corrodes from within.
Most critically, for its parent company, the global mining giant Rio Tinto, this is a direct assault on its environmental, social and governance (ESG) credentials. In modern global capital markets, a strong ESG brand is non-negotiable. An allegation of political patronage at this level is the antithesis of good governance. It exposes a profound failure of oversight and due diligence, potentially making Rio Tinto’s global stock a toxic asset for ethically minded funds and investors. The brand damage is both local and contagiously global.
So, how does a brand begin to detoxify from such a poisoned chalice? The old playbook is often to retreat, to issue minimal statements and hope the news cycle moves on. But in the current media landscape — where headlines spread faster than official reports — silence is its own admission. A credible brand response requires transparency, visible accountability and external validation. It demands not just the language of compliance, but the practice of credibility. RBM must adopt a strategy of radical transparency and active reputation building.
First, absolute transparency is non-negotiable. RBM must publicly welcome the work of the Madlanga commission and pledge its full, unconditional cooperation. Its public statements must move beyond legalistic “no comment” territory to affirm its commitment to ethical business practices and distance itself from any form of patronage.
Second, it must re-engage its community authentically. This goes beyond standard corporate social responsibility. It requires audited, transparent reporting on community investments and a demonstrable, visible commitment to tangibly improving lives in Richards Bay.
Third, it must leverage its parent company’s governance framework. Rio Tinto must be seen to be actively applying its global anti-corruption and ESG standards with ruthless rigour to its South African operation. This external validation is crucial to rebuilding credibility with international investors.
History offers lessons. Globally, companies caught in similar storms have either doubled down on secrecy and worsened their decline or opened their books, embraced external scrutiny and slowly rebuilt legitimacy. The difference is not whether they were guilty or innocent in the end, but how they engaged with the perception battle along the way.
The RBM saga is a cautionary tale for every corporation operating in South Africa’s complex political economy. It underscores a brutal new reality — in an age of crumbling institutions and heightened public accountability, political connections are the riskiest asset a brand can have. What was once seen as a shield has become a sword pointed at its own reputation.
Ultimately, a brand that is seen to drink from the poisoned chalice of political protection might discover that the very thing that seemed like strength has become its greatest liability.
Moshe Kola is a branding strategist with over 20 years’ experience across FMCG, automotive and consulting industries. He is the founder of Movelu Consulting, a firm focused on political, commercial and social brand building.www.moveluconsulting.co.za/insights