The dust around the recent dismissal of the chief executive of the South African Institute of Professional Accountants (SAIPA) has not settled yet.
Shahied Daniels intends to challenge both the disciplinary process against him and his subsequent dismissal. He also accuses the SAIPA board of certain irregularities, unconstitutional conduct, and breaches of governance.
Daniels was found guilty on six charges that included embarking on international travel without approval, approving invoices for overseas expenditure incurred during his graduation, including the graduation dinner and accommodation costs, and for being directly involved in the improper procurement of the services of an international company.
Read: Accountancy body’s chief executive dismissed after forensic investigation
Daniels was appointed as SAIPA’s chief executive in January 2019, and his term would have expired at the end of 2028.
He was placed on precautionary suspension in November last year following the appointment of forensic investigation firm BDO to investigate governance concerns. At the same time, SAIPA’s chief operations officer, Gavin Isaacs, was also suspended.
The investigation found evidence of misconduct, and both executives were suspended and subjected to separate disciplinary hearings. The ruling against Isaacs is expected soon.
Open letter
In an open letter following his dismissal, Daniels says the actions by the SAIPA board represent a broader pattern of misconduct and failure to act in accordance with the body’s constitution and ethical standards. These actions formed part of his “protected disclosure submissions”.
Daniels highlights the conduct of a former chairperson of the SAIPA audit committee, Doris Dondur. Daniels alleges, among other things, that he had to intervene to correct inaccuracies and misrepresentations in her annual audit committee report.
However, SAIPA says there were no misrepresentation or inaccuracies made by the committee chair. The issues raised were due to Daniels not reporting the resignation of the internal auditors and the lack of transparency by management to the board in 2022.
SAIPA also alleges that Daniels manipulated the minutes of meetings which was verified to reflect incorrect facts and outcomes through the original transcripts. He also allegedly failed to provide information that was required by the audit committee. The audit committee chair resigned in July 2023 because of Daniels’ conduct, SAIPA adds.
‘Protected disclosures’
Daniels says he submitted a comprehensive 30-page report in July 2023, detailing the numerous irregularities committed by SAIPA’s board. This submission was supported by 154 pages of evidence, which included documented instances of ethical misconduct, breaches of constitutional governance, and examples of professional misrepresentation by key members of the board.
He alleges that the board, without consulting with him or Isaacs, send his report to a legal firm for an opinion. To date, the opinion has been withheld from him, despite requests for access, Daniels claims.
In November last year, a day before a scheduled board meeting, he sent another protected disclosure submission. This submission was 10 pages, supported by 20 pages of evidence, documenting further alleged irregularities and unethical conduct by the board.
At the time, he was in India to deliver a presentation at the Global Professional Accountants Convention.
“Less than 24 hours later, on 27 November 2023, I, along with the chief operating executive (COE), was suspended based on a report from Malatji & Associates Attorneys. To date, neither I nor the COE (Isaacs) have been provided with access to this report, despite multiple formal requests.”
Urgent application
SAIPA says the alleged protected disclosures were canvassed before the Labour Court following an urgent application brought by Daniels before Judge Edwin Tlhotlhalemaje.
According to SAIPA, his approach to the court was an attempt to halt the disciplinary process based on this “purported protected disclosure”. He claimed he was subjected to an occupational detriment in terms of the Protected Disclosure Act.
An occupational detriment occurs when someone is subjected to disciplinary action – being dismissed, suspended, demoted, harassed, intimidated, or transferred against their will because of a disclosure.
The judge found, among other things, that by alleging that the submissions were protected disclosures, Daniels missed no less than four opportunities on which he could have invoked certain provisions of the Labour Relations Act (LRA).
He could have used several other remedies in the LRA to prevent the harm (occupational detriment) caused as a result of his protected disclosure.
“He, however, failed to do so. The judge specifically noted that it was unclear at which stage his claim morphed into and became located with the ambit of a protected disclosure,” SAIPA said in response to questions.
The application was dismissed because of the lack of urgency.
‘Merely grievances’
“It is SAIPA’s contention that the alleged protected disclosures are merely grievances submitted by Mr Daniels which were addressed by SAIPA as his employer.”
SAIPA chairperson Prem Govender says most of the allegations in Daniels’ open letter were raised during his disciplinary inquiry. She says the allegations do not address any of the charges that were levelled against him.
“Should Mr Daniels still feel aggrieved after receiving his ruling, he has other avenues available to him, which include approaching the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration or the Labour Court.”
Amanda Visser is a freelance journalist who specialises in tax and has written about trade law, competition law, and regulatory issues.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the writer and are not necessarily shared by Moonstone Information Refinery or its sister companies.
