Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
01 August 2023 | Story Kekeletso Takang | Photo Supplied
Business Acumen Day 2023
The UFS School of Accountancy hosted a panel discussion in the Centenary Complex with the topic ‘The audit profession’s response to the financial reporting scandals of the past decade: Has enough been done?’. Panellists included Prof Bernard Agulhas, Rob Rose, and Patricia Stock, and the session was facilitated by Prof Philippe Burger and Conrad de Wee.


Auditing firms in South Africa should go back to basics and emphasise accountability in revamped corporate structures to avoid repeats of the big auditing scandals of the past decade such as the Steinhoff, VBS, Tongaat Hulett, and Bosasa scandals. This was some of the opinion expressed during a panel discussion hosted by the University of the Free State (UFS) School of Accountancy and featuring auditing and accountancy experts. 

The discussion tackled the topic ‘The audit profession’s response to the financial reporting scandals of the past decade: Has enough been done?’, and featured a panel of experts including Rob Rose, Financial Mail Editor and author of Steinheist; Prof Bernard Agulhas, former CEO of the Independent Regulatory Board for Auditors (IRBA) and current Adjunct Professor of Auditing at the UFS; and Patricia Stock, audit partner and CEO of MGI RAS and former South African Institute of Chartered Accountants (SAICA) board member. 

The event took place on 19 July 2023 in the Centenary Complex on the UFS Bloemfontein Campus. It was facilitated by Prof Philippe Burger, Dean of the Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences, and Conrad de Wee, Chairman of the SAICA Central Region Council and Senior Manager at auditing firm Mazars.

Prof Agulhas said a lot has been done to prevent a repeat of the root causes of the financial reporting scandals of the past decade. “Everyone has responded. The profession, regulators, universities, labour markets, the public, and professional bodies.” Still, he said a lot more needs to be done. “We have to go back to basics. Look at the framework, ISA standards, skills, and competencies. Professionals must be adaptable and responsive. Firms must set the tone at the top and create a conducive environment. Establish a culture of accountability. We have to go back to behavioural competencies. Universities can also investigate the inclusion of forensic auditing as part of the curriculum.” 

The panel felt that accountability is central to going back to basics. Rose said he believes businesses need to change their organisational cultures. “The likes of Glencore and Tiger Brands are making an immense effort to revamp. There are numerous ways companies can go about it, including setting the tone at the top and establishing accountability structures in-house. Also, not only having fraud-detection systems, but also implementing them.”

He also questioned why no one is holding bankers accountable for failing to uncover recent corporate scandals. “In the case of Tongaat Hulett, how did they miss all the issues through their risk assessment? At the end of the day, they should also be held accountable.”

Where it all went south

Prof Burger said the World Economic Forum had for seven years, until 2017, rated South Africa number one for the strength of auditing and reporting standards. “And then we started to see things go wrong, with the likes of state capture, Steinhoff, VBS, and others. In light of this, has enough been done to equip external auditors to deal with fraud in organisations, and to ensure that they act in the interest of the public?” 

Prof Agulhas, speaking from his experience as a regulator, said, “Initially, South Africa was one of the few developing countries to adopt international standards. For seven years, we have received a good rating from the World Economic Forum. But if we can be honest, while our professional qualifications are among the best in the world, we were not that good at implementing these standards due to behavioural issues on the part of certain accountancy/ auditing professionals.” 

Stock, sharing her perspective as an audit practitioner, commented: “We are noticing a growing trend among firms to improve on reporting, and audit committees are holding professionals accountable. While this is said, we should also acknowledge that there is a need to look at the whole ecosystem relating to financial reporting.”

Auditing in the era of artificial intelligence

When questioned about the impact of technological advances on auditors, Stock said she believes artificial intelligence and technology integration offer the auditing profession a wonderful opportunity. She stressed that technology will not replace human capital. “We need critical thinkers and value creators. Technology won’t replace that, especially where Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance (ESG) is concerned.” 

Interaction between universities and industry

Prof Burger posed the question, “When looking at the interaction between universities, industry, and trainees, would you say this model is still fit for purpose, and are these individuals ready?”

Stock responded, “The profession needs the diversity of minds. We need their enquiring minds. We need to hear the voices of our trainees. In fact, one of the scandals of the past decade was picked up by a trainee, but was unfortunately ignored by the more senior staff.” 

Where we are now

The panel discussion was attended by stakeholders from the School of Accountancy, which included managers and directors of various auditing and accounting firms, representatives of professional bodies, members of management from large businesses, and university staff members. Interactive polls and the opportunity to submit questions allowed guests to participate in the discussion, which ended with a consensus that while much effort has been made to restore the credibility of the auditing profession, there is still further work to be done. 

The panel discussion was made possible with the financial support of Standard Bank.

News Archive

Council on Higher Education LLB qualification review not yet complete
2017-05-16

The reaction from various stakeholders following the ‘Outcomes of the National Review of the LLB Qualification’ by the Council on Higher Education (CHE) on 12 April 2017 requires the CHE to clarify that the national review process has not been completed and is ongoing.

The peer-review process conducted under the auspices of the CHE is based on the LLB Standards Document which was developed in 2014-2015 with input from higher-education institutions and the organised legal profession. Following self-review and site visits by peers, the process is now at the point where commendations and shortcomings have been identified, and the statement of 12 April reflects those findings. All law faculties and schools have been asked to improve their LLB programmes to meet the LLB Standard, and no LLB programme has been de-accredited. All institutions retain the accreditation they had before the Review process began and all institutions are working towards retaining their accreditation and improving their LLB programmes.

The South African Law Deans’ Association (SALDA) has issued a set of responses regarding the LLB programme review. The following questions and answers were published to give more clarity on the questions raised.

1.    What is the effect of a finding of conditional accreditation?
The programme remains accredited.

(“Accreditation refers to a recognition status granted to a programme for a stipulated period of time after an HEQC evaluation indicates that it meets minimum standards of quality.”)

The institution must submit a progress report by 6 October 2017 that indicates how short-term aspects raised in the HEQC reports have been addressed and an improvement plan to indicate how longer-term aspects will be addressed.

2.    What is the effect of a finding of notice of withdrawal of accreditation?
The programme remains accredited.

The institution must submit an improvement plan by 6 October 2017 to indicate how the issues raised in the HEQC report will be addressed, including time frames.

3.    How does the finding of notice of withdrawal affect current students?
Students currently enrolled for the LLB programme at any institution are not affected at all. They will graduate with an accredited qualification.

4.    How does the finding of notice of withdrawal affect new applicants?
The programmes remain accredited and institutions may enrol new students as usual. This also includes students completing BA/BCom (Law) programmes who wish to continue with the LLB programme.

5.    How does the finding of notice of withdrawal affect prior graduates?
Degrees previously conferred are not affected.

6.    What happens when the improvement plans are submitted in October 2017?
The CHE will evaluate the plans when they are submitted, and the programmes remain accredited until a decision is taken whether the improvement plan is sufficient and has been fully given effect to or not. The institutions will have to submit progress reports to the CHE indicating implementation of measures contained in the improvement plan.

Should a decision at some stage be taken that a programme’s accreditation must be withdrawn, a teaching-out plan would be implemented so that all enrolled students would have the opportunity to graduate with an accredited degree.

For more information on the CHE’s pronouncement please contact Moleboheng Moshe-Bereng on MosheBerengMF@ufs.ac.za.

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept