On its website, the South African Institute of Chartered Accountants (Saica) explains that its disciplinary process “plays a crucial role in maintaining the integrity of the profession and protecting the public interest”. It goes on to tell us that through the exercise of professional authority over members, the institute protects the public from unscrupulous practices and unprofessional or unethical conduct.
Well, there wasn’t much sign of any of that at Saica’s recent disciplinary hearing of one of its members, Graeme Rigby, who had been accused of gross negligence, dishonesty and bringing the profession into disrepute.
The charge was based on a complaint lodged with Saica in 2021 by Simon Mantell of Mantelli’s Biscuits and related to a flawed tender process. In 2013 Mantelli’s was awarded a tender to supply salty snacks on SAA flights. The award was subsequently withdrawn, unlawfully, and given to AVI subsidiary Ciro Beverage Solutions. It was in his role as an executive of Ciro that Rigby, a chartered accountant (CA), ended up in front of a Saica disciplinary committee hearing.
That sounds like good news. If a tender has been awarded irregularly, then people should be held to account. But Saica made such a mess of the case that by the time the hearing ended Rigby’s lawyer was demanding punitive costs against the institute for the suffering his client had endured as a result of the bungled process.
And let’s not forget about Mantell, which seems to be what Saica wanted to do. Having pursued the process doggedly for two years, Mantell was hindered, by Saica, from participating in the hearing. A bizarre move given that his absence weakened Saica’s case. Essentially, Saica achieved a remarkable outcome, one in which both complainant and defendant lost out. As did Saica’s reputation.
Don’t expect to see much improvement on this grim performance in the years ahead. Saica’s outgoing CEO, Freeman Nomvalo, believes he is running a top-notch organisation
The appalling way Saica conducted the disciplinary action should be seen in the context of the statement issued by the institute in January 2022 soon after the release of part 1 of the Zondo report. “Saica confirms it will be investigating all members mentioned in the Zondo commission report,” it promised.
Since that bold statement, Saica has held precisely two disciplinary hearings. The first in February this year related to charges against former SAA board member Yakhe Kwinana. The charges relied heavily on work done by the Zondo commission. Kwinana was fined R6.1m and barred from acting as a CA.
And then, 10 months later, there was the Rigby hearing for which Saica relied entirely on affidavits and records supplied by Mantell and Rigby, doing no investigation of its own. When challenged about this, Saica told the hearing it was entitled to do so by its bylaws.
Don’t expect to see much improvement on this grim performance in the years ahead. Saica’s outgoing CEO, Freeman Nomvalo, believes he is running a top-notch organisation. Indeed, one of the best of its kind in the world.
“South African CAs have earned the top position in a groundbreaking global professional trust survey conducted by Edelman, a respected [market] research firm, on behalf of Chartered Accountants Worldwide,” boasted a recent Saica media release. It seems 1,300 participants took part in the survey that covered South Africa, England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand.
Saica assumed this was a major accolade, with Nomvalo referring to the resilience and excellence shown by South Africa’s CAs and pointing out: “Much of this success is also due to the hard work of all at Saica who daily fly the flag for the profession.”
No doubt the vast majority of South African CAs are an outstanding bunch with heaps of integrity, but there is a considerable number who are not. And before we all get too carried away with getting a No 1 ranking, we should look a little closer at the survey.
It seems 200 “financial decisionmakers” in South Africa — CAs perhaps? — completed a 15-minute online survey in which they gave a glowing account of their country’s CAs. Even more glowing than the ones given by their colleagues in the seven other countries.
It’s difficult to know what, if anything, to make of the survey results. It would be worrying if Saica used them, and not the inept way it enforces discipline, as a yardstick to measure its performance. If it is dazzled by such survey results the South African public will suffer.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.