By Jarryd Neves
Former Eskom and Transnet CFO, Anoj Singh, has been excluded as a member of the South African Institute of Chartered Accountants (SAICA) following a disciplinary hearing. A committee found Singh to be guilty of 12 of the 18 charges brought against him.
The committee has recommended that Singh have his membership revoked, as well as have his name and misdeeds published. The former CFO will also have to pay 50% of the costs incurred by the SAICA in regards to the disciplinary hearing.
___STEADY_PAYWALL___
Read also: Naysayers, pay attention. Corruption is being dealt with – JP Landman. MUST READ!
Singh – who did not attend the hearing – had his membership suspended in July 2020, following the investigation into his activities while at Eskom and Transnet.
The board found that in April 2013, Singh “presented the business case for the acquisition of the 1064 locomotives to Transnet’s Board Acquisitions and Disposals Committee.” Initially, the cost for the locomotives stood at R38,6-billion, “excluding forex hedging, forex escalation, other escalating costs and borrowing costs”, according to the SAICA report.
Soon after the post-tender negotiations, the agreed upon price had increased to R54,5-billion. In 2014, a memorandum was given to the Acquisitions and Disposals Committee. The purpose of this memo was to note the increase in the cost of the 1064 locomotives, as well as request that the Acquisitions and Disposals Committee recommend the R15,9-billion increase to the Board of Directors, for their approval.
“It is against this background and the increase in the estimated cost of the acquisition of the 1064 locomotives that saw the Institute levelling charges against Mr Singh for various breaches of its Code of Conduct and its Bylaws,” says the report.
Read also: Tim Modise asks law-enforcers: where are we on arresting corruption in South Africa?
The committee found Singh guilty of improper conduct “by conducting himself grossly negligently in failing to ensure that the business case accurately and clearly stated that the initial costs of R38,6 billion included the potential effects from forex hedging, forex escalation and other price escalations.”
The Institute of Chartered Accountants have also given a verdict on several Eskom-related charges. The charges were separated into four groups, namely “the approval of irregular payments to McKinsey”, “the approval of irregular payments to Trillion”, “his conduct surrounding the Tegeta Performance Guarantee and the purchase of Optimum Mine” and lastly, “his improper relationship with the Gupta family.”
Singh was submerged in controversy after evidence came to light of him accepting kickbacks from the Guptas, in return for decisions made in their favour.
While the committee could not ascertain whether Singh had breached any regulations by approving payment to consultancy firm McKinsey, its findings with regards to controversial company Trillian were otherwise.
“On the documentary evidence provided by the Institute it was clear that there was no contract between Eskom and Trillian. It was equally clear that invoices were sent by Trillian to Mr Singh’s email address and that he approved their payment” says the report. It goes on to say that Singh “did so without ascertaining whether the payments could and should be made.” According to the then-CFO of Trillian, the company could not have provided services to Eskom as it “had no employees.” Due to this, the committee found Singh guilty as a result of his gross negligence.
On the charges regarding the Tenet Performance Guarantee and the purchase of Optimum Mine, Singh was found guilty by the committee.
Read also: Paul Hoffman: Has ANC finally had its ‘Eureka!’ moment on corruption?
“The documentary evidence relied upon by the Institute showed that Tegeta was R600 million short in respect of the purchase price for Optimum Mine and that its acquisition of the mine was in jeopardy unless it was in a position to obtain that amount of funding, Two days later, Eskom on the instructions of Mr Singh, advanced an amount of R659-million to Tegeta on the premise that it constituted a pre-payment for the supply of coal. But Tegeta was not yet the owner of Optimum Mine and Eskom had no supply agreement with Tegeta. The only reasonable inference to be drawn was that this amount was being paid in order to assist Tegeta to meet its obligations to the business rescue practitioners and the consortium of bankers to acquire Optimum Mine. This was an improper use of Eskom’s funds.”
As for the final Eskom related charge, the Institute and its’ committee did not find him guilty of his alleged connections and “improper conduct” with the Guptas.
A number of allegations were hurled at Singh, many of them accusing him of having “travelling expenses paid for by the Gupta family.”
‘We cannot on that basis find Mr Singh guilty of having engaged in any improper relationship with the Gupta family whilst employed by Eskom or having compromised his objectivity, independence, professional judgment or integrity at the time.” they concluded.
Based on the severity of his charges, Singh will be stripped of his membership, be subjected to his name and the findings of this investigation being published and pay 50% towards the costs incurred by the Institution.
