Auditor dodges probe
A partner at a major auditing firm says it is inordinately late for the regulatory body to examine his conduct in a high-profile investigation eight years after the fact.
Hans Hashagen, a former partner of auditing firm Ernst & Young (EY), recently filed an application to the High Court requesting the court to set aside a decision by the Public Accountants' and Auditors' Board (PAAB) to arraign him before a disciplinary hearing on six charges.
The charges against him stem from an investigation into alleged misconduct at the Namibian Financial Institutions Supervisory Authority (Namfisa) in 2009 and his conclusion that a disciplinary process should be brought against the then CEO of Namfisa, Rainer Ritter.
Hashagen, currently an advisory and risk assurance leader at PriceWaterhouseCoopers, in his report had maintained that Ritter had acted outside his mandate. That eventually led to Ritter's separation from Namfisa after a settlement agreement.
At the time of this departure from Namfisa, Ritter had insisted on further investigations and actions against a number of senior political figures allegedly implicated in the missing estimated N$660 million from the Government Institutions Pension Fund (GIPF) through botched loans.
It was also at a time when Ritter had alleged that some employees at Namfisa were involved in the cover-up of the GIPF investigation.
After his departure from Namfisa, Ritter laid a complaint against Hashagen with PAAB and the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Namibia (ICAN).
In his complaint Ritter alleged that Hashagen had omitted crucial information from his report to Namfisa, claiming that should all information have been provided, there would not have been any grounds for disciplinary proceedings against him.
PAAB on 17 August 2016 notified Hashagen to appear before a disciplinary enquiry, charging that he had acted in contravention of various provisions of the International Federations of Accountants Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants (the IFAC Code).
Hashagen, in his founding affidavit to the High Court, maintains that PAAB's decision was unlawful and should be set aside. He also questions the “inordinate and unexplained delay” of about eight years, adding that PAAB has no lawful basis for its use of the IFAC Code to issue disciplinary charges against him.
The charges against Hashagen
PAAB's six charges against Hashagen relate to the alleged involvement of Namfisa staff in the cover-up of the fraud and corruption investigation into the GIPF millions.
Charges 1 to 5 refer to alleged failures on Hashagen's part to comply with certain sections of the IFAC Code.
The charges also refer to his alleged “lack of expertise” to investigate the removal of eavesdropping equipment at Namfisa, the failure of security cameras, the deletion of security system files at Namfisa, the appointment of the manager of risk and legal services at Namfisa, and the appointment of Wayne Phillip as a forensic expert at Namfisa.
Importantly, charge 6 pertains to Hashagen's alleged failure to include an array of documents in the final EY report.
Hashagen states that omissions in the report were made because documents were either not provided to him or fell outside the scope of the contractual mandate of the investigation.
“It is clear that Ritter is not satisfied with the EY report, but the charges relate only to his subjective criticisms of what, in his view, should or should not have been included,” Hashagen states in his affidavit.
Hashagen further states that investigations in respect to charges 1 to 5 were conducted by suitably skilled and qualified members of the EY investigation team and where special skills or expertise were required, they were assisted by external service providers.
Defence
Eben de Klerk, Ritter's legal representative, confirmed that they would assess whether Ritter would also approach the court to ensure his rights as complainant remain protected.
“As much as Hashagen has the right to a fair disciplinary hearing, the complainant has a right to have his complaint and the substantiating evidence be adjudicated upon, to the fullest extent, by an independent, capable disciplinary committee appointed by PAAB,” De Klerk stated.
He added: “A society relies on the skills, diligence and honesty of auditors and it is therefore crucial that the regulation of auditors is efficient, especially in a matter like this where the alleged injury is not only to one person, but the whole financial services industry, every member of the GIPF, in fact, the country as a whole.”
PAAB is defending Hashagen's application.
CATHERINE SASMAN
The charges against him stem from an investigation into alleged misconduct at the Namibian Financial Institutions Supervisory Authority (Namfisa) in 2009 and his conclusion that a disciplinary process should be brought against the then CEO of Namfisa, Rainer Ritter.
Hashagen, currently an advisory and risk assurance leader at PriceWaterhouseCoopers, in his report had maintained that Ritter had acted outside his mandate. That eventually led to Ritter's separation from Namfisa after a settlement agreement.
At the time of this departure from Namfisa, Ritter had insisted on further investigations and actions against a number of senior political figures allegedly implicated in the missing estimated N$660 million from the Government Institutions Pension Fund (GIPF) through botched loans.
It was also at a time when Ritter had alleged that some employees at Namfisa were involved in the cover-up of the GIPF investigation.
After his departure from Namfisa, Ritter laid a complaint against Hashagen with PAAB and the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Namibia (ICAN).
In his complaint Ritter alleged that Hashagen had omitted crucial information from his report to Namfisa, claiming that should all information have been provided, there would not have been any grounds for disciplinary proceedings against him.
PAAB on 17 August 2016 notified Hashagen to appear before a disciplinary enquiry, charging that he had acted in contravention of various provisions of the International Federations of Accountants Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants (the IFAC Code).
Hashagen, in his founding affidavit to the High Court, maintains that PAAB's decision was unlawful and should be set aside. He also questions the “inordinate and unexplained delay” of about eight years, adding that PAAB has no lawful basis for its use of the IFAC Code to issue disciplinary charges against him.
The charges against Hashagen
PAAB's six charges against Hashagen relate to the alleged involvement of Namfisa staff in the cover-up of the fraud and corruption investigation into the GIPF millions.
Charges 1 to 5 refer to alleged failures on Hashagen's part to comply with certain sections of the IFAC Code.
The charges also refer to his alleged “lack of expertise” to investigate the removal of eavesdropping equipment at Namfisa, the failure of security cameras, the deletion of security system files at Namfisa, the appointment of the manager of risk and legal services at Namfisa, and the appointment of Wayne Phillip as a forensic expert at Namfisa.
Importantly, charge 6 pertains to Hashagen's alleged failure to include an array of documents in the final EY report.
Hashagen states that omissions in the report were made because documents were either not provided to him or fell outside the scope of the contractual mandate of the investigation.
“It is clear that Ritter is not satisfied with the EY report, but the charges relate only to his subjective criticisms of what, in his view, should or should not have been included,” Hashagen states in his affidavit.
Hashagen further states that investigations in respect to charges 1 to 5 were conducted by suitably skilled and qualified members of the EY investigation team and where special skills or expertise were required, they were assisted by external service providers.
Defence
Eben de Klerk, Ritter's legal representative, confirmed that they would assess whether Ritter would also approach the court to ensure his rights as complainant remain protected.
“As much as Hashagen has the right to a fair disciplinary hearing, the complainant has a right to have his complaint and the substantiating evidence be adjudicated upon, to the fullest extent, by an independent, capable disciplinary committee appointed by PAAB,” De Klerk stated.
He added: “A society relies on the skills, diligence and honesty of auditors and it is therefore crucial that the regulation of auditors is efficient, especially in a matter like this where the alleged injury is not only to one person, but the whole financial services industry, every member of the GIPF, in fact, the country as a whole.”
PAAB is defending Hashagen's application.
CATHERINE SASMAN
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article