Integrity of SA In­­stitute of Chartered Accountants under fire amid whistleblower claims of poor governance

The South African In­­stitute of Chartered Accountants (Saica) is meant to be the gold standard of professional integrity in the accounting industry. For decades, it has held itself up as the custodian of ethics in a country scarred by corporate collapse and public sector looting.

However, Saica’s former executive director of legal and governance, Jaco Snyman, whose portfolio included the role of board secretary, tells a very different story. The picture he paints is one of intimidation, institutional rot and a regulator that seems unable, or unwilling, to regulate itself.

The first alarm was raised in March 2024 about what Snyman described to Daily Maverick as a “calculated abuse” of member funds at Saica.

He had noticed a sudden spike in the number of board and committee meetings. Against a market standard of four meetings per year per committee (for a total of 28 meetings), Saica’s board and committees had convened 52 times in 2023.

Each additional meeting translated into income for board members. They were paid more than R3,275 per hour, with committee chairs pocketing even more. “This whole thing just stinks to heaven,” Snyman told colleagues in one of his recorded accounts.

When he formally raised the matter, the retaliation was swift. Saica has confirmed he was suspended on 17 March 2025. According to Snyman, his laptop was confiscated, his access was revoked and he was forbidden to contact colleagues. However, Saica disputes this and says that Snyman had access to his laptop,  information and employees through his "human capital business partner" while he was suspended. 

“They told me the charges were ‘very serious’,” Snyman recalls. “But when I asked what they were, they said they didn’t know yet.”

In a statement issued on Tuesday, 23 September, Saica said: "Mr. Snyman's disciplinary enquiry is an internal matter and consequently Saica cannot comment on the merits as the matter is still ongoing. Saica will issue a statement in due course once the disciplinary enquiry has been finalised. Saica can also confirm that Mr Snyman has referred numerous disputes to relevant dispute resolution tribunals. Saica respects Mr Snyman's rights and will respond at the appropriate time and before appropriate fora."

Retaliation dressed as governance

According to Snyman, the silencing saga began on 25 March 2024 when he, convinced that Saica aimed to silence him ahead of its annual general meeting, submitted a protected disclosure. Saica subsequently brought in law firm Bowmans to conduct what was billed as an independent investigation.

Saica has clarified that the existence of a "protected disclosure" does not provide blanket immunity from all disciplinary action, particularly where subsequent or unrelated misconduct is identified. "The procedure prohibits disciplinary action 'on account, or partly on account' of a Protected Disclosure, but it does not preclude legitimate disciplinary measures for conduct that stands independently of the disclosure or for conduct that breaches other organisational policies or codes of conduct. Each matter must be evaluated on its merits, considering the causal nexus between the disclosure and the disciplinary action," it says.

Saica has further denied receiving any reports on 25 March. Instead, it says it was notified on 24 March 2025 of a tip-off submitted to the Anonymous Tip-Offs Hotline on 19 March 2025 which implicated the board of Saica, the board chairman and CEO.

Snyman says he was denied access to documents and his own team, rendering him incapable of producing the evidence that might have supported his claims. Saica wasted no time in publicising the outcome of the Bowman's investigation, announcing that there were “no grounds” for Snyman’s allegations. 

Saica has since expressly denied that Snyman was suspended for “raising red flags”, as the disciplinary action was initiated (on 17 March) prior to any whistleblower reports being made. "The external independent chairperson of the disciplinary enquiry rejected Mr Snyman's argument that his hearing should not go ahead because he was subjected to an occupational detriment," it said. 

In response to Daily Maverick’s request for comment about the proceedings, Bowmans replied tersely: “As a matter of policy, Bowmans does not comment on ongoing client-related matters.”

However, in its statement issued on 23 September, Saica says Bowmans issued its final report on 26 May 2025, which indicated that it did not find any substantiating evidence to back up the reporter’s allegations. Bowmans concluded and reported that:

• No prima facie evidence was found that the meetings were unwarranted;

• No wilful intent by any board member to mislead or defraud Saica in respect of sitting fees was identified;

• The increased number of board and sub‑committee meetings was attributable to a range of organisational matters that necessitated more meetings than originally scheduled;

• No evidence that the matter had been formally raised with the CEO or the board chairperson; and

• No evidence of undue influence or intimidation by the Saica board.

"Bowmans did, however, find that there were some control weaknesses and made recommendations to address these. Saica always values constructive feedback, and as such, is implementing tighter governance controls in relation to the payment of directors' fees following recommendations made by Bowmans," Saica admitted.

By July 2024 the narrative had taken a bitter turn. Snyman found himself facing 10 disciplinary charges laid by Saica, including the accusation that he had mismanaged board fees – the very issue he had tried to expose. “It’s pure stupidity,” says Snyman. “If the whistleblower doesn’t get the opportunity to provide his evidence, then of course there’s no evidence of wrongdoing.”

These serious allegations are apparently corroborated by Saica’s own commissioned reports.

A PwC benchmark report from March 2025, which Daily Maverick has a copy of, shows that Saica’s board members were remunerated annually at levels far above the market:

• Audit and risk committee (ARC) members: 509% of the median;
• Social, ethics and transformation committee members: 446% of the median; and
• ARC chairperson: 363% of the median.

 PwC observed that Saica “has more meetings than the comparator group for the board and all the subcommittees”, a finding that directly validates Snyman’s claim.

A separate Institute of Directors in South Africa (IoDSA) report describes the board as “extremely busy running extended (full-day) meetings while not finishing the agenda”, leading to endless extra sessions. Four months into the financial year, the board had still not signed off on a strategy or budget – a failure the IoDSA deemed “unacceptable”.

Saica’s constitution demands that it act both in the public interest and in the common interest of its members. 

For his part, Snyman believes he was simply doing what the code demands: reporting non-compliance with laws and regulations when internal remedies failed.

The PwC report confirmed that the institution’s per meeting fee structure makes it particularly vulnerable to abuse. Only 17% of listed comparator companies used such a system; most preferred fixed annual retainers to prevent exactly this kind of exploitation.

Saica has hit back, noting that PWC concluded that: “The build up fee per meeting analysis shows that the board chair and board member are well below the market while the LID and the sub-committee chairs are slightly below the market. The compa-ratios of the board chair and board member fees are below the tolerance band as the market hourly fees for these roles are higher than the AGSA fee used for these roles by Saica. The other roles are all within the tolerance band. The sub-committee chairs and members are very well aligned with the market, indicating that the AGSA fees used by Saica aligns well to the discounted professional fees (30% discount for sub-committee chairs and 50% for sub-committee members) used by PwC.”

However, a closer inspection of the PwC report shows the above is selectively quoting from the report. It also states: "The sub-committee members are above the market."

The report goes on to state quite clearly:

"...we recommend that more emphasis is placed on the per meeting fee analysis than the annual fee analysis. Saica's annual fees are consistently higher than the comparator group, with the exception of the Board Chair and LID, roles which typically attract a premium over the other board roles in the listed environment."

Source: Saica non-executive director study by PwC, March 2025.

The report clearly states: "On a fee per meeting basis, we observed that the LID [lead independent director] and Board Member are within the tolerance band. The other roles are all above the tolerance band. As the Board Chair fee is benchmarked on an all-inclusive basis, meaning that the fee includes fees received for all roles fulfilled on the board, an isolated per meeting fee for the responsibilities of serving as the Board Chair cannot be accurately determined. On an annual fee basis, we observed that the Board Chair is below the tolerance band while the LID is within the tolerance band. However, the balance of the other roles are above the tolerance band. The difference noted between the results on a per meeting and an annual fee basis is due to Saica having more meetings per annum than the comparator group. The NED fee structure can have a significant impact on the total fees paid per annum."

Source: Saica non-executive director study by PwC, March 2025.

Change is gonna come

Saica’s dual mandate – serving members and policing them – is a built-in conflict. 

The account of whistleblower mistreatment, if true,  points to deeper cracks in the profession.

“I can no longer remain silent,” wrote Snyman, warning that ignoring these issues will only let the abuse continue, hurting both Saica members and the broader public.

So, will Saica’s members, donors, regulators and the government finally demand real accountability? The profession’s credibility might just depend on it.

Following the original publication of this article in our print publication DM168, 19 September 2025, Saica, through its lawyers Webber Wentzel, contacted the journalist to raise concerns that Saica was not afforded a reasonable time to respond, in breach of the Press Code.

Saica was offered a full right of reply, which both the Saica spokesperson and lawyers have acknowledged.

This online article has been updated to include Saica's responses. DM