Auditors hearing still on
RECUSALS: DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE CHAIR DISMISSES APPLICATION The parties are engaging on possible continuation dates.
The Independent Regulatory Board for Auditors’ (Irba) disciplinary hearing against the three former auditors to the failed Sharemax Investments property syndication schemes is set to continue.
This follows a decision by Advocate Anthea Platt, chair of the disciplinary hearing, dismissing an application by Advocate Mike Maritz, appearing for the three auditors, for the recusal of Suren Sooklal and Horton Griffiths, two members of the disciplinary hearing committee.
Maritz’s application was made on the grounds of actual bias or perceived bias and for the hearing to be declared a nullity.
Acting Irba CEO Imre Nagy told Moneyweb last week: “In light of the committee ruling, the matter will proceed before the same committee. The parties are engaging on possible continuation dates.”
Postponements
Platt postponed the hearing on 19 February to give the committee an opportunity to consider the recusal application and issue a ruling.
The hearing initially commenced on 16 March 2020 and was scheduled to continue until 4 April 2020, but was postponed on 19 March 2020 because of Covid-19. It subsequently resumed on 25 January 2021.
Platt said in a written ruling that Maritz brought the application for the recusal of Sooklal based on his utterances and to a lesser extent his body posture while posing questions to Prof Harvey Wainer, an expert witness for the three auditors.
In addition, Maritz alleged that Sooklal misrepresented the evidence with the specific intent to ridicule the evidence of Wainer while questioning him; reintroduced matters that have become common cause, or undisputed or not challenged during cross examination during the questioning of Wainer; and the body language of Sooklal while questioning Wainer.
Platt said neither Sooklal nor Griffiths are versed in law and legal proceedings and their presence on the disciplinary committee is due to their specific skills as chartered accountants and registered auditors.
She said the allegation that Sooklal has prejudged certain issues does not necessarily indicate bias or the appearance of bias because even a strongly expressed view could still be a provisional view that could change during the deliberations of a committee or the presentation of forthcoming evidence.
She said Sooklal’s alleged discourteous and disrespectful body language during his interaction with Wainer is not sufficient to support a finding of bias nor does it create a reasonable suspicion of bias.
Platt said it has been alleged that the utterances of Sooklal created the impression that he has a closed mind but stressed the mere expression of a viewpoint, albeit a strong one, is not sufficient to establish bias.
Platt said the Griffiths application is premised on the existence of a prior relationship, on questions posed, and his demeanour.
Prior relationship
She said the basis for the application against Griffiths is that he had served as a member of Irba’s investigation committee from 1995 until 2007 and as chair from about 2000, with his term as chair overlapping with the membership of Brian Smith, Irba’s expert witness in this case, for a period of about three years.
Platt said Griffiths informed the respondents that the last time he had any interactions with Smith was when they served on the investigating committee together and that his involvement in this committee ceased in 2007.
Griffiths has since then had no interaction with Smith nor seen him until he appeared in March 2020 and then again in February 2021 when he testified at the hearing.
Platt said the investigation culminating in the disciplinary hearing commenced in about 2011 and the decision to proceed to a hearing was only taken in 2016, which is nine years after Griffiths terminated his involvement in the investigation committee.