As scrutiny intensifies SA’s fraud examiners find themselves drawn into the accountability debate

South Africa’s commissions of inquiry have become defining theatres of democratic accountability. From the Zondo Commission into State Capture to more recent parliamentary inquiries, these forums have exposed corruption, tested political narratives and placed the country’s institutions under intense public scrutiny.

Yet recent developments surrounding testimony linked to the Madlanga Commission and ad-hoc committee parliamentary proceedings have raised a more uncomfortable question – one that extends beyond the individuals appearing before these bodies.

What happens when the credibility of the investigators themselves becomes part of the public debate? Figures such as Sarah-Jane Trent and Paul O’Sullivan, both associated with high-profile anti-corruption investigations, have become central to a polarised public discussion.

Supporters see them as courageous investigators willing to challenge powerful interests in environments where accountability is often resisted. Critics, however, argue that the increasingly public and politically charged nature of some interventions risks blurring the boundary between professional investigation and political contestation.

Perception of independence

The issue is not whether investigators should testify before commissions or parliamentary committees. In any functioning democracy, expert testimony is essential to uncovering the truth. The real concern emerging from governance and ethics scholarship is more subtle: How does a profession safeguard the perception of independence when its practitioners operate in highly polarised political environments?

Political theorist Hannah Arendt once observed that authority rests not merely on power or expertise, but on the credibility attributed to those who exercise it. For professions built on trust, credibility is not an optional attribute – it is the foundation of their legitimacy.

The global Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE) is one of the most recognised professional bodies dedicated to combating fraud and financial crime. Its Certified Fraud Examiner (CFE) designation is widely used across corporate, legal and public sector institutions, including in SA. The credential signals not only technical expertise but also adherence to professional standards grounded in independence, objectivity and investigative rigour.

Across Africa, thousands of practitioners rely on the designation as a benchmark for forensic investigation and fraud risk governance. But professional credentials carry an inherent paradox. The authority they confer can strengthen institutions – yet it also amplifies scrutiny when those holding them become visible actors in politically sensitive arenas.

The issue raised by the current debate is therefore not about the legality of any specific investigation or the right of professionals to participate in contentious public inquiries. It is about perception.

Governance scholar Mark Bovens has argued that institutions do not lose legitimacy only when wrongdoing occurs; they lose it when citizens begin to question the impartiality of those entrusted with authority. Forensic investigators occupy precisely such positions of authority. Their findings can trigger disciplinary actions, shape criminal prosecutions and influence the public narrative surrounding corruption and governance failures.

Credibility

When their neutrality is widely trusted, their work becomes a powerful instrument against corruption. But when their neutrality itself becomes the subject of public contestation, the credibility of the investigative ecosystem may come under strain. The implications extend far beyond any single commission or individual. Three risks deserve particular attention.

The first concerns the credibility of professional designations. Certifications such as the Certified Fraud Examiner derive their value from the perception that they represent impartial expertise. If practitioners are perceived – fairly or unfairly – as being aligned with particular political agendas, the signalling power of the designation itself may begin to erode.

The second risk relates to reputational spillover across the broader forensic community. Over the past decade, governments and institutions across Africa have invested heavily in strengthening forensic investigation capacity as part of broader anti-corruption reforms.

International professional bodies have played an important role in building that capability. Yet professional reputations function as collective assets. Controversy surrounding even a small number of highly visible practitioners can shape perceptions of the wider profession.

The third risk concerns the fragile state of public trust. South Africans have spent more than a decade confronting systemic corruption associated with the era widely known as State Capture. Commissions of inquiry have exposed extensive wrongdoing, but they have also produced a degree of public fatigue. In such an environment, the credibility of investigators themselves becomes crucial.

Sociologist Niklas Luhmann famously argued that trust reduces social complexity by allowing citizens to rely on institutions they cannot fully monitor. When trust erodes, complexity returns – and confidence in institutions collapses. For professional bodies, moments of public scrutiny therefore present a dilemma. They can retreat into silence and hope controversy dissipates, or they can engage openly with questions about professional integrity. History suggests the latter approach is far more constructive.

‘Ethic of responsibility’

Max Weber described professions not merely as technical communities but as groups bound by what he termed an “ethic of responsibility”. That ethic implies that professional communities must actively guard the integrity of their own standards. For the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners – both internationally and within SA – the current debate could therefore represent an opportunity rather than simply a reputational challenge.

Professional bodies strengthen trust when they:

• Reaffirm ethical standards governing independence and objectivity.
• Encourage transparency when investigators operate in politically sensitive contexts.
• Foster open internal dialogue about how forensic professionals navigate environments where evidence, media scrutiny and political narratives intersect.

Such measures would not target individuals or prejudge ongoing proceedings. Rather, they would reinforce a principle central to all professions: credibility must be actively protected. The deeper issue raised by this moment is ultimately ethical rather than procedural. Forensic investigators occupy positions of significant influence within modern systems of governance. Their analyses can determine whether individuals face prosecution, whether institutions undergo reform and whether public narratives shift.

With such influence comes an obligation to remain visibly independent from the political battles their investigations may expose. Maintaining that independence is never easy – particularly in polarised societies. Yet it remains essential to the legitimacy of the profession.

Political philosopher Michael Sandel has argued that institutions endure not merely because of rules but because of the moral commitments of those who serve within them. Professional communities are no exception. South Africa’s forensic investigation community has played a critical role in exposing corruption, strengthening governance and advancing accountability over the past decade. Those contributions should not be underestimated.

But the credibility of any profession ultimately depends on its willingness to examine itself when difficult questions arise. In this regard, the reflections of two of SA’s leading ethics scholars offer an important guide.

Rigorous self-examination

Professor Deon Rossouw and Professor Leon van Vuuren, founders of The Ethics Institute and long-standing advocates for ethical leadership in South African institutions, have consistently argued that professions must be willing to engage in rigorous self-examination when public trust is at stake.

Rossouw’s work on the ethics of governance emphasises that ethical leadership requires the courage to ask uncomfortable questions about our own institutions before others are forced to ask them for us.

Van Vuuren similarly notes that professions protect their credibility not by denying ethical risk, but by confronting it openly. Those insights point toward a constructive path forward.

The question confronting the global community of Certified Fraud Examiners — and its South African chapter in particular — is not whether criticism exists. In an open society, criticism is inevitable. The real question is whether the profession is prepared to engage in the kind of introspection that strengthens institutional trust.

Is the Certified Fraud Examiner profession still the guardian of fraud governance? Or has the increasingly politicised environment created conditions where the profession itself must pause and reflect on whether its independence is being tested? For a profession built on the promise of integrity, that is not an accusation. It is a necessary question. DM