JOOSTE’S ROAD NOT TAKEN

It won’t be the last time we see Steinhoff’s former CEO in the witness box. But while he didn’t reveal much in parliament, we did learn plenty

If you’re looking for a crash course in executive moral relativism, you might want to spend a few hours watching the recording of Markus Jooste testifying in parliament last week. There is a moment, early on, when Steinhoff’s former CEO is testifying about his anger at the retailer’s auditor, Deloitte, saying it’s not going to sign off the accounts, and that it wants a new forensic investigation into allegations of fraud.

The background is that over the preceding months, Deloitte had been tipped off to “irregularities” within Steinhoff’s accounts. (You know: overstated revenues, forged documents, inflated asset values.)

So Deloitte demands another forensic investigation. How does Jooste respond? Perhaps to say to Deloitte: “By all means — here are the keys to the office, go wild”?

Well, no. Instead, as he explained: “My personal view was that Deloitte’s mandate should be terminated at that moment in time and we should appoint alternative auditors.” That new auditor, he said, would then sign off Steinhoff’s financials.

Jooste’s explanation was that because Deloitte didn’t buy his answers, it had “lost [its] independence”. It wasn’t acting in accord with the “real culture of the auditing profession”, as he put it.

Presumably, in Jooste’s world, “real auditors” don’t question management’s numbers. It’s a pretty appalling example to any other executives.

Bernard Agulhas, CEO of the Independent Regulatory Board for Auditors (Irba), says that, obviously, a CEO shouldn’t try to fire an auditor simply because he doesn’t like its findings. As Jooste wanted to do.

Markus Jooste survived because of a built-in tactical advantage — members of parliament are always reluctant to miss lunch David Maynier