South African construction and engineering group Murray & Roberts (M&R) on Wednesday said that it had lodged a formal objection with the DG of the Department of Trade and Industry over allegations of it participating in collusive practices.

The group, led by CEO Brian Bruce, also “categorically” denied any involvement in collusion in the construction industry.

The Competition Commission on Tuesday announced that it had started an industrywide investigation into potential collusive practices in the construction sector, which would include some of South Africa’s largest construction groups, such as M&R.

The Commission noted that it has, since March, received a number of applications for corporate leniency from construction companies for collusive practices with respect to certain construction projects.

A preliminary investigation undertaken by the Commission on the identified projects had indicated that there could be widespread collusion in the construction industry, it had said on Tuesday.

“The DG has acknowledged the formal objection and has raised the matter with the Competition Commissioner,” said M&R.

Further, the group also expressed its concern over the Commission’s “media campaign”, which alleged the existence of collusive practices in the steel industry.

It emphasised that Cape Town Iron & Steel (Cisco), on which the Commission had recommended the Competition Tribunal impose an administrative penalty, was a subsidiary of M&R, which “denies any knowledge of such a cartel”.

Following an investigation into potential collusion in the steel industry, the Commission announced on Tuesday that it had recommended that the Competition Tribunal impose administrative penalties of 10% of the annual turnover in South Africa and exports from the country, against Cisco, ArcelorMittal South Africa and Cape Gate.

“The forensic investigations undertaken by M&R consequent to the so-called dawn raids by the Competition Commission, indicate that if anything, Cisco is a victim of predatory pricing by the larger inland steel mills,” the group stated.

However, the group noted that it did not deny that in “isolated instances”, individuals in the group had acted fraudulently in what could be “construed as collusive behaviour”.

“This is the independent actions of individuals for personal gain. The group has forensically investigated all its operations in the context of Competition Law and where such isolated irregularities have been found, it has engaged with and placed leniency markers with the Competition Commission,” it concluded.