South African Institute of Chartered Accountants (Saica) whistleblower Jaco Snyman wasn’t completely honest about the disciplinary action against him that was still in motion when he approached Daily Maverick with information.
However, although the timing of revelations of his delaying tactics during his Saica disciplinary hearings were not ideal and, in a small way, compromised the article in DM168 on 19 September, his act of courage gave other whistleblowers a platform to voice further concerns, which Daily Maverick could take to Saica directly.
In the interest of fairness and truth, Saica leadership – including Charlotte Makaluza acting executive of human capital; Patricia Stock, chief executive officer; Walter Bhengu, head of stakeholder engagement; Amanda de Beer Nel, chief governance, risk and compliance officer; and Alicia Daniels, executive for member compliance and discipline – responded to our initial story, and Daily Maverick listened.
Their account is of an institution caught in a tug-of-war between past failures and present attempts at reform, and the difficult necessity of confronting uncomfortable truths.
The original allegations of irregular board remuneration were corroborated in Saica’s own commissioned PwC report: audit and risk committee (ARC) members were being paid 509% of the market median, and the committee’s chairperson received 363% above the median.
Saica doesn’t dispute these numbers. In fact, it acknowledges them directly. “The ARC chair and member fees were benchmarked against both models, and the results indicated that Saica’s fees were above the market median,” Stock says.
But here’s where it gets interesting. Saica argues that PwC’s preferred methodology (the fee build-up model) actually showed the rates were, in Stock’s view, “aligned with market within the tolerance bands”. It insists its operations cannot be equated directly with those of a typical nonprofit organisation because of its “intricate structure, encompassing oversight of two subsidiaries and a broad, multidimensional mandate”.
The problem? The report itself states 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.” Notably, the fees for the board chair and lead independent director are exceptions to this trend, as these roles typically attract a premium in the listed environment.
And then there’s this: “The subcommittee members’ fees are above the market.”
Saica’s defence hinges on complexity and meeting frequency, with Stock saying that Saica held more meetings because of the change in leadership – she joined at the end of 2023 – and strategic direction. Fair enough, but when the Institute of Directors in South Africa (IoDSA) describes the board as “extremely busy running extended (full-day) meetings while not finishing the agenda”, the question needs to be asked: is this operational necessity or dysfunction?
The IoDSA report noted that four months into the financial year, the board still hadn’t signed off on a strategy or budget – a failure deemed “unacceptable”.
Suspended secretary and staff leaving
Perhaps nothing captured the procedural oddness better than this: how does an institute secretary suspended on 17 March 2025 officially sign the 2024 annual financial statements on 26 May 2025?
Saica’s answer is delivered by De Beer and is technically correct. “Mr Snyman electronically signed in his role as institute secretary, covering the period during which he was still formally accountable for ensuring internal controls within the secretariat function.”
The decision, De Beer says, was reached “by mutual agreement” and Snyman remained the registered company secretary for the reporting period. The underlying cause for his suspension “did not affect his ability to sign off on that certificate”.
It’s procedurally defensible. It’s also exactly the kind of arrangement that makes members wonder whether the rules apply equally to everyone, or whether proximity to power buys flexibility.
Snyman was also elusive about whether he signed the mutual consent or not.
Within 16 months, Saica lost its chief operating officer, chief investment officer (CIO), chief financial officer (CFO) and executive director of learning.
“Executive members departed for various reasons at different times. For reasons of confidentiality and in line with Popia [the Protection of Personal Information Act], we cannot disclose individual circumstances,” Stock says.
“It’s common during periods of strategy change and restructuring for senior executives to move on, either to pursue new opportunities or due to role realignments.”
Stock provides some context: the executive director for learning gave a year’s notice, the CFO had their own plans and the CIO left for health reasons. But the pattern speaks to something deeper – an institutional culture under strain, whether from necessary reform or leadership dysfunction.
Then there’s the curious case of the interim head of strategy, appointed, according to multiple additional whistleblowers, without a competitive process, despite having been struck from the Saica membership roll for noncompliance.
Saica maintains the procurement process was followed and “the checks came back clear”. The role, Stock argues, “does not require a chartered accountant. It’s not a minimum requirement.”
As for the prior deregistration? “Pure administrative matters,” Stock says. The individual “voluntarily reinstated his membership”. Again, technically all above board. But for an institution that holds members to exacting standards, it also concurs that the optics do not look good.
Retrenchments and slow processes
Saica promised that no jobs would be lost during Project ReCAlibrate, its strategic realignment initiative. Then 10 people were retrenched. Parallel disciplinary letters were issued during section 189 consultations.
Saica’s response is that the fundamental principle was “to build and develop our people into new and exciting capabilities, not reduce our workforce”. Retrenchments arose from “operational reasons, primarily the absence of required skills, office location considerations or return-to-office requirements”. There were also people who left during the process, which is why Saica says 10 retrenchments, but the whistleblowers count 13.
The disciplinary letters? They “followed established human resources and legal protocols addressing specific cases of misconduct” and were “unrelated to retrenchment”. The process was handled independently through a Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration commissioner and an independent chairperson.
Legally sound? For sure. But whistleblowers see a pattern: promises made, promises adjusted, consequences for those who pushed back.
In response to the original article, Saica members and the public expressed consistent frustration to Daily Maverick that disciplinary processes against members of the profession often seemed slow, with penalties lacking a deterrent effect.
Unfortunately, Saica doesn’t have legal powers, and the long lead times required to gather evidence, sometimes requiring applications under the Promotion of Access to Information Act, mean public accountability only arrives after the damage is done. As one member put it: “The public does not want to see a [professional] only being held to account after all the money has been taken from three different state entities.”
Saica’s counter? Progress is being made. “Total cases finalised in 2024 amounted to 1,287 compared with 185 in 2023, reflecting a significant growth of 595.14%.” That’s a massive improvement on paper. But it also raises an uncomfortable question: how did the backlog get that bad in the first place?
Stock categorically denies corruption. “There’s no corruption in [Saica], at least not that I know of.” Ditto for allegations of “fundamental governance failure”.
Instead, she frames the challenges as growing pains from necessary institutional change. Actions include “strengthened processes for debate and board engagement”, reviewing internal controls and developing a new strategy (2024–2028) using a “stakeholder-inclusive approach”.
On the Snyman case specifically, Saica maintains it has been fair: parallel disciplinary processes continued despite his whistleblower status because he was trying to “abuse that for whatever gain”.
Stock also acknowledges operational challenges. The Ushintsho digital migration delay is a material challenge, but a new target operating model (effective June) aims to turn things around. “Cost reduction is still a work in progress,” she admits, following up with an invitation for Daily Maverick to look for full return on investment in the 2027 financials.
The clock is ticking
The engagement with Saica shows an organisation genuinely trying to reform while simultaneously defending practices that undermine confidence. It is clearing backlogs, implementing new governance structures and investing in systems. These are real, demonstrative actions.
But the gap between strategic commitment and tangible results remains wide. Members want to see reduced query backlogs now, finalised disciplinary actions now, clear cost management now.
Stock asks for patience. “These are inevitable trade-offs required to implement a forward-looking strategy that ensures the long-term sustainability and relevance of the CA(SA) designation.”
The profession’s credibility might just depend on whether 2027 arrives before trust runs out entirely. Saica’s dual mandate to serve members and police them remains a built-in conflict. The account of whistleblower mistreatment, if true, points to deeper institutional cracks. But if the reforms are genuine, if the board truly commits to transparency over defensiveness, there’s a path forward. DM
This story first appeared in our weekly Daily Maverick 168 newspaper, which is available countrywide for R35.
