How Saica’s cookie crumbled
The institute’s disciplinary process looked underdone at a hearing stemming from the Air Chefs ‘cookie wars’
A dispute over biscuits has exposed a weak link in one of South Africa’s most reputable institutions, the South African Institute of Chartered Accountants (Saica).
At a two-day hearing last week into one of its members, Graeme Rigby, the institute’s disciplinary process appeared to be broken.
The hearing had its roots in the “cookie wars”, a conflict over a biscuit tender worth about R4m a month issued by Air Chefs. It was awarded to biscuit maker Mantelli’s, then withdrawn and given to Ciro Beverage Solutions.
Mantelli’s founder Simon Mantell, who resigned from Saica in 2018, is the complainant in the institute’s hearing into Rigby, a former financial director of Ciro. Over the past decade, Mantell has challenged failures in tender processes and bungling of legal processes by members of professional bodies.
The dispute was heard by advocates Azhar Bham, Daniël Bredenkamp and Adila Chohan. Duncan Turner acted for Rigby, who was charged with gross negligence, dishonesty and discredibility.
According to the charge sheet, Rigby had commissioned a bank verification letter as a commissioner of oaths, signed a tender without knowing which documents constituted the pack, and misrepresented the truth to Mantell, in an e-mail, two years after the tender was submitted.
During the hearing, which marked the culmination of two years of to-and-fro between Mantell, Rigby and the institute, deficiencies in Saica’s handling of the matter became apparent.
First, the institute used the wrong code of conduct — one that came into force only after the alleged breaches — to charge Rigby.
Turner said his client had asked three times in the buildup to the hearing for the correct code to be referenced.
Committee chair Bham conceded that “there was no attempt made to change the reference to the code”.
Asked about its preparations for the hearing, Saica tells the FM: “The code of conduct relied on … is the code that was relevant at the time. The code in the [case] bundle was the 2014 code, but the sections relied on in the code are exactly the same in both codes.”
It emerged during the hearing that the institute never investigated the allegations against Rigby itself; it relied on affidavits and records supplied by Mantell and Rigby.
“What investigation did you do to ascertain which bid documents were in front of [Rigby] on the date he signed?” Turner asked Alicia Daniels, Saica’s project director for legal and discipline.
“No, I didn’t [conduct an investigation],” she said.
It left a hole in Daniels’s case because she didn’t know which documents were before Rigby when he signed the tender. In his evidence, Rigby said all the documents were in the bid pack.
On the second day, Bham said that “if it was fair, there should have been an investigation” to make findings on whether Rigby was dishonest and negligent.
“The professional body [Saica] accepted a limited set of documents without doing effort to obtain the full set,” Bham said.
The institute clung to its bylaws in a reply to questions about the lack of an investigation. “Saica relied on both evidence in the complaint docu
ments as well as the affidavits of the respondent [Rigby] as it is entitled to do under its bylaws.”
Also, the institute did not call Mantell to testify. On the first day of the hearing, as Daniels set out the charges against Rigby, Bham asked her twice why Mantell would not testify.
Daniels said Saica could not obtain an affidavit from Mantell. Mantell tells the FM he was given less than 24 hours to work through and amend an affidavit supplied by Webber Wentzel, Saica’s attorneys. When he requested more time, it was denied.
Saica tells the FM: “[We] engaged with the complainant on a draft affidavit to be submitted to the disciplinary committee. By the time the deadline for submission to the [committee] was reached, the draft affidavit from the complainant had not been finalised. Saica filed its affidavit and there was no need to call the complainant as witness.”
Saica withdrew its second and third charges and let go a request for the committee to make an integrity finding on Rigby. All that the committee needs to consider now is whether the commissioning of the bank verification letter was irregular.
At the end of the hearing, Turner, on behalf of Rigby, asked for a punitive cost order against the institute, and made recommendations for the committee to consider fixing Saica’s disciplinary process. He said the institute should conduct investigations when there are allegations against its members, compile detailed charge sheets and offer support, in the same way its peer organisation in the UK does.
It emerged that the institute never investigated the allegations against Rigby itself