Accounting body’s institutional bark has no bite to fight rampant corruption

The South African machinery of justice is running on fumes. The Hawks are overburdened, the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) is painfully slow, and the path from prima facie evidence to an orange overall can take a decade.

Read more: Shamila Batohi drifts into 2026, retirement and choppy waters following Nkabinde Inquiry

Into this vacuum of accountability, this writer projected his desperation onto professional bodies. Specifically, the South African Institute of Chartered Accountants (Saica) to be the arbiter of morality in the boardroom.

When a CFO – more often than not a registered chartered accountant (although this is not a JSE listing requirement) – allegedly cooks the books or a CEO loots a VBS, we don’t just want them fired; we want them stripped of the CA(SA) title.

But there is a growing dissonance between the swift justice the public demands and the operational reality of a voluntary membership body.

No subpoena powers

To understand why Saica disciplinary action seems to move at a glacial pace, you have to look at the tools in its belt. Alicia Daniels, Saica project director for legal and discipline, previously told Daily Maverick about the structural limitations they face compared to bodies like the IRBA (Independent Regulatory Board for Auditors) or the Zondo Commission.

“We’re not a regulator. We’re not, you know, law enforcement,” Daniels explained. “And so that comes with limited powers... we don’t have powers of subpoena.”

Read more: Saica defends credibility after whistleblower claims

This is the subpoena deficit. A police officer has a badge, a gun, and the legal right – when granted by a court official – to kick down a door to seize a hard drive.

Saica describes its position essentially as a private security guard. A security guard can enforce rules on the property, in this case, the CA(SA) profession, but if a crime is committed, they cannot force anyone to talk or hand over evidence.

“We can’t demand reports,” Daniels said, which forces the institute into a reactive corner.

Seeing the crash from the other side of the road

This structural flaw creates a parallel process bottleneck. Because Saica cannot seize evidence, it is often forced to wait for other legal organs like the courts, the Hawks, or Parliament to do the heavy lifting first.

This dynamic is currently playing out at the Road Accident Fund (RAF). Despite the noise surrounding the conduct of its now-suspended CFO, Bernice Potgieter, Saica confirmed to Daily Maverick that its hands are effectively tied.

“Saica can confirm that in January 2023 [we] liaised with an individual who had expressed an intention to lodge a complaint against the member,” the institute stated in a written response to questions.

“Saica provided guidance on the lodging of the complaint... [but] has to date not received a complaint against the member.”

Read more: RAF accounting fantasy collapses as ASB receipts expose CFO’s testimony and corner Letsoalo

Without a formal affidavit providing prima facie evidence, and without the power to subpoena the RAF’s internal documents, the institute cannot launch a prosecution. Instead, it is forced to “piggyback off or wait for parallel processes”, as Daniels put it.

“Saica has liaised with Scopa (Standing Committee on Public Accounts) and was informed that the inquiry is still ongoing.”

It is now in a holding pattern, promising that “in the event that the inquiry reveals any acts... Saica will act upon this information”.

Stalingrad tactics

This reliance on external processes is exactly what allows bad actors to exploit the system. We saw this with the Stalingrad strategy employed by former members like Anoj Singh and the late Markus Jooste.

By tying up the primary evidence in criminal or civil courts and changing legal teams, they effectively stalled Saica’s hand.

Read more: Transnet State Capture Big Four face 32 charges of corruption, fraud

Daniels explained that State Capture recommendations often came with a responsibility for the institution to “go and obtain actual information and evidence which is admissible in a disciplinary hearing”. This often means launching Promotion of Access to Information Act applications to get information, which did come with a lead time.

Saica CEO Patricia Stock explained the “holding out” limitation regarding former members. If a member resigned or was struck off, Saica’s jurisdiction evaporated.

“It’s only where we find that there has been some kind of a fraudulent misrepresentation leading to some kind of prejudice that we would take it further,” she said.

“You are a CA, [and on] your social media profile you don’t get [around] to update and remove CA(SA)... We can come and say you’re holding out. So that’s why we say it’s administrative.”

When the gavel finally drops

When they do get the evidence – usually after a painful wait – the sanctions can be severe. The Disciplinary Committee has the power to impose fines of up to R500,000 per charge, suspensions, and exclusions. This was seen in the record R6.1-million fine imposed on former SAA board member Yakhe Kwinana, where the per charge cap was stacked to devastating effect.

Ultimately, expecting Saica to police corruption in the absence of a functioning NPA is like asking a traffic department to enforce speed limits without speed cameras.

They can see the car speeding on the news, but as the institute admits: “Where a complainant lodges a complaint affidavit but has not provided Saica with sufficient information... [the] member discipline unit will request additional information.”

Until the legislative framework changes to grant professional bodies more teeth, or until the state’s own investigative organs recover their bite, we remain in a precarious position. DM