It seems childish, like Apple feels the need to show "who's the bitch" by making the developer bow to their desires.
From the way I understood Dash and Apple's conversation, Kapeli helped another developer become a fully registered in Apple's dev program. He helped by paying the $99 on his own credit card and letting the new developer do testing with his hardware, thus "linking" the accounts in the eyes of Apple (same CC, same hardware devices). And it was actions by the new developer that appeared fraudulent.
Apple isn't asking him to admit involvement with the new developer. They just want to get the word out that it wasn't some blackbox heuristic that singled out Kapeli for some unknowable reason.
Basically a case of guilt-by-association. And because of that, I really think they should have contacted him about it before bringing out the ban hammer.
So, why didn't they just do that? Instead of this roundabout "we screwed up and you screwed up, so you need publish our comment for us", why not just come out and comment on the circumstances, and reinstate the account. Boom. Whole thing is resolved, muck stops being slung, developers are happy because Apple appears responsive to problems, and customers can once again download Dash.
1) A developer appears to be manipulating reviews in direct violating of his developer agreement.
2) Apple attempts to reach out to developer, but receives no response.
3) Apple suspends account, and any linked accounts.
4) Said developer cries foul, lies through his teeth about having nothing to do with these reviews, accuses Apple of unfair treatment, and succeeds in getting major news outlets to pick up his story.
5) Apple's reputation is unjustly damaged due to the one-sided media attention.
6) Apple reaches out to developer directly, gives him a reasonable way out: Admit that Apple's actions were justified based on their best available knowledge, and further that they are willing to correct the situation and assist the developer with preventing it in the future. This protects the interests of both parties. Apple is vindicated. Developer is vindicated. Bad press goes away.
7) In the process of carrying out this agreement, Apple discovers said developer was lying to them. He was indeed guilty of exactly what Apple accused him of. The linked account contained his own products, as proven by archives of his website. Apple makes the ban permanent.
Now, if Apple had done what you suggest, this would be tantamount to saying, "Yep, that bad press was right. We screwed up. Sorry." This damages Apple's reputation, making developers wary of distributing products on the App Store. This has a financial impact on Apple. If I were still an Apple shareholder, I would expect my interests be protected in exactly the manner they were.
Whether one agrees with the walled garden of the App Store is not relevant to the facts of the case. Enforceable legal contracts between two parties is a key pillar of modern civilization. The parties in a contract must weigh their risks-rewards, and judge accordingly.
They admitted as much.
If you don't see that as being a problem, that's your choice.
Developer (caught up in a mistaken fraud check|screwed up and purchased reviews) and his account was shut down; reinstated as a gesture of good will by Apple after explaining what happened. Developers in general are happy because Apple appears responsive to problems with fraud checks, original developer is properly chastized and can move on with life.
Contrast that with "Developer is still raising very public hell about their account being disabled; Apple fans digging up dirt on developer."