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

The failure of the law
2004-06-04

 

Written by Lacea Loader

- Call for the protection of consumers’ and tax payers rights against corporate companies

An expert in commercial law has called for reforms to the Companies Act to protect the rights of consumers and investors.

“Consumers and tax payers are lulled into thinking the law protects them when it definitely does not,” said Prof Dines Gihwala this week during his inaugural lecture at the University of the Free State’s (UFS).

Prof Gihwala, vice-chairperson of the UFS Council, was inaugurated as extraordinary professor in commercial law at the UFS’s Faculty of Law.

He said that consumers, tax payers and shareholders think they can look to the law for an effective curb on the enormous power for ill that big business wields.

“Once the public is involved, the activities of big business must be controlled and regulated. It is the responsibility of the law to oversee and supervise such control and regulation,” said Prof Gihwala.

He said that, when undesirable consequences occur despite laws enacted specifically to prevent such results, it must be fair to suggest that the law has failed.

“The actual perpetrators of the undesirable behaviour seldom pay for it in any sense, not even when criminal conduct is involved. If directors of companies are criminally charged and convicted, the penalty is invariably a fine imposed on the company. So, ironically, it is the money of tax payers that is spent on investigating criminal conduct, formulating charges and ultimately prosecuting the culprits involved in corporate malpractice,” said Prof Gihwala.

According to Prof Gihwala the law continuously fails to hold companies meaningfully accountable to good and honest business values.

“Insider trading is a crime and, although legislation was introduced in 1998 to curb it, not a single successful criminal prosecution has taken place. While the law appears to be offering the public protection against unacceptable business behaviour, it does no such thing – the law cannot act as a deterrent if it is inadequate or not being enforced,” he said.

The government believed it was important to facilitate access to the country’s economic resources by those who had been denied it in the past. The Broad Based Economic Empowerment Act of 2003 (BBEE), is legislation to do just that. “We should be asking ourselves whether it is really possible for an individual, handicapped by the inequities of the past, to compete in the real business world even though the BBEE Act is now part of the law?,” said Prof Gihwala.

Prof Gihwala said that judges prefer to follow precedent instead of taking bold initiative. “Following precedent is safe at a personal level. To do so will elicit no outcry of disapproval and one’s professional reputation is protected. The law needs to evolve and it is the responsibility of the judiciary to see that it happens in an orderly fashion. Courts often take the easy way out, and when the opportunity to be bold and creative presents itself, it is ignored,” he said.

“Perhaps we are expecting too much from the courts. If changes are to be made to the level of protection to the investing public by the law, Parliament must play its proper role. It is desirable for Parliament to be proactive. Those tasked with the responsibility of rewriting our Companies Act should be bold and imaginative. They should remove once and for all those parts of our common law which frustrate the ideals of our Constitution, and in particular those which conflict with the principles of the BBEE Act,” said Prof Gihwala.

According to Prof Gihwala, the following reforms are necessary:

• establishing a unit that is part of the office of the Registrar of Companies to bolster a whole inspectorate in regard to companies’ affairs;
• companies who are liable to pay a fine or fines, should have the right to take action to recover that fine from those responsible for the conduct;
• and serious transgression of the law should allow for imprisonment only – there should be no room for the payment of fines.
 

Prof Gihwala ended the lecture by saying: “If the opportunity to re-work the Companies Act is not grabbed with both hands, we will witness yet another failure in the law. Even more people will come to believe that the law is stupid and that it has made fools of them. And that would be the worst possible news in our developing democracy, where we are struggling to ensure that the Rule of Law prevails and that every one of us has respect for the law”.

 

 

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