Mantengu Mining vs JSE: The Allegations

Mantengu Mining Limited (share code MTU on the JSE) has claimed that its share price has been manipulated downward by a syndicate, including some other companies, in order to sabotage its growth plans and acquisitions. EWN+3Writers Room+3IOL+3

Key Allegations

1. Price Suppression / Downward Manipulation
   Mantengu says there has been a campaign, over many months (since mid-2023), of trades designed to depress its share price. Trades allegedly include share blocks sold at well below market price, especially toward the end of trading days. Writers Room+2Writers Room+2

2. Naked Short Selling & Unlawful Trades
   Mantengu alleges some trades consisted of “naked shorts” – that is, selling shares they do not own, without having borrowed them. Also, it points to suspiciously priced trades that would not make economic sense after fees, unless the purpose was manipulation. Writers Room+2IOL+2

3. Syndicate Involvement (Front Companies, etc.)
   The company accuses names including Liberty Coal (formerly Optimum Coal) and some fronted entities, which share directors, lawyers, and auditors, of being part of the syndicate. IOL+1

4. Obstruction or Negligence by JSE and Regulators
   Mantengu claims that when it raised these concerns:

   • JSE did not act sufficiently, or blocked full SENS announcements. EWN+2IOL+2

   • Regulator FSCA (Financial Sector Conduct Authority) did investigate but purportedly in a limited way (in terms of time, in terms of scope) and did not include a full set of suspicious trades flagged. BizNews+2Writers Room+2

5. Impact on Shareholder Value & Growth Plans
   Mantengu argues that the lowering of share price has real consequences: it reduces market cap, diminishes the ability to raise capital, diminishes funding for expansion, etc. They claim some of the share price decline goes beyond what fundamentals alone would suggest. Writers Room+2sharedata.co.za+2

Investigations & Findings

Given these allegations, several investigations and responses have followed. The main authorities involved are the FSCA, the JSE, Mantengu itself (and its legal advisors), and in some cases law enforcement (e.g. Hawks).

FSCA Investigation

• The FSCA initiated an investigation into Mantengu’s complaint of “prohibited trading practices” including supposed price manipulation and insider trading. BizNews+2Sunday Independent+2

• The period of investigation covered specific transactions flagged by Mantengu, including those in January 2024 and some up to August 2024. Writers Room+1

• The outcome: The FSCA found no evidence that the identified transactions amounted to unlawful market manipulation, or that the JSE or its staff did anything improper, nor that “naked short selling” took place in the sense of uncovered shorts. sundayworld.co.za+3BizNews+3Sunday Independent+3

• Because of this, the FSCA said it would take no enforcement action with respect to the investigated complaints. BizNews+2Sunday Independent+2

Mantengu’s Pushback / Disagreements

While FSCA’s findings are officially that no wrongdoing was established, Mantengu has raised several objections:

1. Limited Timeframe & Sample
   Mantengu asserts that only part of the relevant period (about 9 months) was investigated, whereas they believe the alleged manipulation has been going on for longer. Also, only specific trades flagged by Mantengu were examined; many others suspected by the company were not included. Writers Room+1

2. Scope of Investigation
   Mantengu claims that the FSCA focused too much on one type of alleged wrongdoing (e.g. short selling) and not enough on broader systemic or collusive market manipulation by a syndicate. Also that some evidence (e.g. from seized devices via an Anton Piller order) was excluded. Writers Room+1

3. Role of JSE (Surveillance, Transparency, SENS Notices)
   The company accuses the JSE of not being transparent enough, delaying or blocking announcements (especially via SENS — the Stock Exchange News Service), not fully engaging with their complaints, and perhaps having weak surveillance. Writers Room+2IOL+2

4. Legal / Defamation Battles
   Liberty Coal has responded legally, suing for defamation and demanding cease-and-desist with respect to Mantengu’s public allegations implicating it. Mantengu, for its part, has filed criminal complaints (with Hawks, etc.) against a number of parties including JSE executives. IOL+3IOL+3Business Report+3

What Are the Arguments For & Against

Here are some factors on both sides, evaluating how credible the claims might be, where the gaps are, and what evidence or lack thereof suggests.

Outcome So Far

• FSCA has cleared the specific allegations they investigated (i.e. those flagged trades) of price manipulation or naked shorting. No enforcement action from FSCA on those matters. BizNews+1

• Liberty Coal has threatened and initiated legal action for defamation, asserting the allegations are ungrounded. Business Report

• Mantengu continues to maintain that the investigations have been too narrow, and has called for wider, deeper inquiries. BizNews+1

Implications & Broader Concerns

This affair raises bigger issues that go beyond just Mantengu:

1. Market Integrity & Investor Confidence
   Accusations of manipulation can undermine confidence in the JSE and in how fair markets are for smaller companies. If investors believe that share prices can be artificially depressed, they may avoid participating, or demand higher risk premiums. Mantengu itself has noted that erosion of shareholder value harms not only the company but the credibility of the exchange. sharedata.co.za

2. Regulatory Oversight & Scope
   The case highlights how regulators’ investigations are constrained by structure, limited time frames, specific trade samples. There's tension between needing proof beyond reasonable doubt or establishing wrongdoing, and the need for transparency and comprehensive surveillance. It suggests possible gaps in how well suspicious trading is detected, and whether regulators are well-equipped or willing to pursue complex market abuse claims.

3. Legal Liability & Reputational Risk
   Accused parties (Liberty Coal, others) are defending themselves in court. Even if found not guilty of manipulation, public allegations can cause reputational harm. Meanwhile, companies making allegations may face counterclaims or legal risk (defamation etc.) if evidence is insufficient.

4. Corporate Disclosure & Transparency
   If companies feel the exchange is blocking or delaying sensitive disclosures, there may be pressure for reforms in how exchanges or regulators manage announcements (SENS or equivalent), or how they protect or enable companies to warn shareholders about market abuse.

5. Investors’ Strategy & Risks
   For shareholders of Mantengu or similar firms: risk that share price does not reflect fundamentals; risk of low liquidity; risk of trading anomalies; need to be vigilant. Also the value of governance, legal recourse, and oversight.

Current Status & What’s Next

• Mantengu is awaiting full FSCA report; indicates potential to ask for High Court review of findings. BizNews

• The Hawks (South Africa’s law enforcement) are involved in criminal complaints filed by Mantengu. IOL+1

• Liberty Coal is pursuing defamation damages (in excess of R250 million) against Mantengu. Business Report

My Assessment & Open Questions

From the publicly available information, here’s my take and what remains unclear:

• The claims by Mantengu are serious and are backed by some evidence of unusual trade pricing, etc. It is plausible that non-fundamental trading activity could depress a share price, especially for smaller or lower-liquidity stocks.

• However, proving legal wrongdoing (market manipulation, naked short selling, collusive behaviour) is difficult. Regulators need clear proof: intention, pattern, material harm, and violation of specific laws. The FSCA’s findings suggest the evidence presented so far did not meet that legal threshold for the samples they examined.

• Mantengu’s criticisms about limited scope seem valid: if you only examine a subset of suspect trades and a relatively short period, you might miss broader patterns. Also, inclusion of all relevant evidence (e.g. from seized devices) may affect the strength of the case.

• One concern is whether JSE’s surveillance and monitoring are robust enough in practice, especially for newer, smaller, or volatile stocks. Also, whether transparency obligations are enforced strictly (e.g. around announcements).

Open questions include:

• Will the FSCA’s full report provide more detail, and possibly find additional evidence?

• Will law enforcement (Hawks) pursue criminal charges based on broader or different evidence that was not in FSCA’s scope?

• How will the defamation case turn out, and whether either side will have to retract or substantiate claims further?

• Might there be regulatory or policy changes at the JSE or FSCA to improve detection, surveillance, and transparency?

Conclusion

The Mantengu vs JSE market sabotage story is a complex, unfolding case of alleged market abuse, involving serious claims of share-price manipulation, syndicate wrongdoing, and regulatory inaction. To date, regulators have cleared the specific complaints they investigated, but Mantengu argues that the full picture has not been considered. The legal and reputational stakes are high — for form, for small shareholders, and for the credibility of the JSE and South Africa’s capital markets generally.