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

Protection of Information bill- opinions from our experts
2011-11-28

Prof. Hussein Solomon
Senior Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of the Free State. 

In recent years, given their failure to effectively govern, the ANC has become increasingly defensive. These defensive traits have become particularly acute in light of the various corruption scandals that members of the ruling party involve themselves in.
 
Given the fact that for now they are assured of an electoral majority (largely on account of their anti-apartheid credentials), coupled with the fact that they have managed to make parliament a rubber stamp of the executive as opposed to holding the executive accountable, it is the media which has increasingly held the ruling party to account by exposing such corruption and incompetence in government.
 
The passing of the information bill, therefore, is not merely an attack on the media, but an attack on the pivotal issue of accountability. Without accountability, there can be no democracy.
 
By defining national interest broadly, by refusing to accept a public interest clause in the bill, the ANC increasingly shows its disdain to South Africa's constitution and its citizens.
 
More importantly, as former Minister of Intelligence and ANC stalwart Ronnie Kasrils pointedly makes clear, the ANC is also betraying its own noble struggle against the odious apartheid regime. It was the media which played a key role in exposing apartheid's excesses, it is the same media which is coming under attack by the heirs of PW Botha's State Security Council - Minister of State Security Siyabong Cwele and his security apparatchiks whose mindsets reflect more Stalin's Gulag's than the values of the Freedom Charter.
 
The passing of this bill is also taking place at a time when journalists have had their phones attacked, where the judiciary has been deliberately undermined and parliament silenced.
 
Democrats beware!

 
Prof. Johann de Wet
Chairperson: Department of Communication Science 
 
The ANC’s insistence on passing the Protection of State Information Bill in its current form and enforcing it by law, means that the essence of our democratic state and the quality of life of every citizen is at stake.
 
Yes, our freedom as academics, researchers, mass media practitioners and citizens comes into play. Freedom implies the right to choose and is, along with equality, an underlying principle which helps make democracy happen. While the South African state needs to protect (classify) information which could threaten its security and/or survival, the omission of a public interest clause in the Bill at this stage effectively denies a citizen the right to freedom of information.
 
 Freedom of information, along with press freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of association and religious freedom, are essential to democracy. These freedoms are granted because they conform to basic liberal ideas associated with (Western) democracy and which resonate with South Africa’s liberal constitution, such as (1) belief in the supreme value of the individual (and thus not of the state); (2) belief that the individual has natural rights (rights which belong to all human beings by nature – such as the right to life and to control government)) which exist independently of government, and which ought to be protected by and against government; and (3) recognition of the supreme value of the individual. 
 
One wonders how many cases of South African government corruption and mismanagement would have been uncovered by investigative journalists over the past number of years if this Bill in its current form was on the statute books. This Bill represents a backward step from the promise of democracy of having an informed public. The former National Party government had similar laws in place and one does not want to go there again. The infamous Information Scandal in South Africa of some thirty years ago, or Muldergate as it has come to be known, reminds one of what governments can do when it works clandestinely.
 
What South Africans need, is more information on what government structures are doing and how they are doing it with taxpayers’ money, not less information. While information in itself does not equal communication or dialogue, it is an indispensable part thereof, and the need for dialogue based on verifiable information is urgent for meeting vexed challenges facing South African communities. Academics in all fields of specialisation are constantly in need of untainted information to pursue answers and/or offer solutions to where South Africa should be moving in all spheres of life.

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