Under South African company law, an Annual General Meeting (AGM) is a statutory obligation that a public company must convene once in every calendar year. Beyond mere regulatory compliance, the broader purpose of an AGM is to serve as a critical platform for corporate governance, transparency, and shareholder democracy.
At the end of 2025, Just Share published a report on the 129 AGMs we attended between 2018 and 2025. Although our activism has pressured companies to treat AGMs as opportunities for transparent communication rather than mere statutory formalities, this is not our experience across-the-board.
Some boards still treat AGMs as mere statutory formalities or afterthoughts, conducting them in ways that limit transparency, evade accountability, and stifle meaningful shareholder engagement.
For example, at one of the AGMs Just Share attended earlier in 2026, shareholders were reminded – starkly – that governance is about more than policies and disclosures. It is about conduct. And tone. And whether those entrusted with leadership understand the rights of the people they serve.
The chair in this instance presided over what can only be described as a dismissive and, at times, openly hostile engagement with certain shareholders. Representatives of Just Share in particular were treated with visible impatience from the outset. Their presence appeared to be tolerated rather than respected.
More troubling was the apparent attempt to limit legitimate shareholder participation. Questions were interrupted. Others were met with derision. One question – raising the serious issue of potential exposure to forced or exploitative labour in retail supply chains – was met with a chuckle. That response alone should concern any investor who takes environmental, social and governance risks seriously.
This is far more than a procedural complaint – it goes to the heart of shareholder rights.
An AGM is one of the few formal mechanisms through which shareholders – regardless of size – can hold boards to account. The right to ask questions is a fundamental part of corporate governance – it is not a courtesy to meeting attendees extended at the discretion of the chair. When that right is curtailed, trivialised or treated with contempt, it weakens the accountability framework on which public markets depend.
Equally concerning was the requirement that shareholders state how many shares they represented before asking a question. This signals a hierarchy of voice that runs counter to the principle of equal treatment. Shareholder democracy does not – and should not – operate on a sliding scale of importance based on stake size when it comes to the right to be heard.
Unfortunately, this was not an isolated incident. It reflects a pattern of antagonism towards shareholder engagement that has played out in public forums before. That makes it harder to dismiss as a momentary lapse. It suggests a deeper discomfort with scrutiny.
Many board chairs claim an intention to engage with shareholders and hear their perspectives. That commitment now needs to translate into practice. The expectation is not that all engagement will result in agreement. It is however that shareholders will be allowed to raise concerns without interruption, dismissal or ridicule.
South African companies often speak about transparency, accountability and stakeholder inclusion. Those commitments carry little weight if they do not extend to the most basic test – how boards respond when shareholders ask difficult questions in a public forum.
If anything, the events at this AGM provide a clear case study in what not to do.
Respectful engagement is not an optional nice-to-have. It is a core governance duty. when boards dismiss shareholders, they are demonstrating a misdirected show of authority that deserts commitments to accountability and transparency.
Nicole Martens is Just Share’s executive director.
IMAGE: 123rf Free
