Latest news with #InternationalPublicSectorAccountingStandards42
IOL News
7 hours ago
- Business
- IOL News
Road Accident Fund weighs withdrawal from court battle with Auditor-General
Road Accident Fund Board Chairperson Zanele Francois confirms that the Transport Department has given them 21 days to do a risk assessment and impact analysis, so that if they exit court ptoceedings, they can find other amicable ways to resolve the problem with the Auditor-General's audit finding. Image: Twitter The Road Accident Fund (RAF) is considering withdrawing its contentious court case involving a dispute with the Auditor-General over the accounting standards. This emerged when the board of the RAF, the executives, and Deputy Minister Mkhuleko Hlengwa appeared before the Portfolio Committee on Transport at a marathon meeting on Wednesday night. The entity has signed papers to be lodged with the Constitutional Court after the President of the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) turned down their petition following the Pretoria High Court decision that dismissed RAF's application to review and set aside the A-G's 2020/21 disclaimer audit report. It undertook the legal action despite the Transport Department instructing it to find a solution to the dispute that was sparked by an audit finding that its use of the International Public Sector Accounting Standards 42 RAF was inappropriate and significantly different from the South African Standards of Generally Recognised Accounting Practice. Briefing the committee on Wednesday night, board chairperson Zanele Francois said the board was looking at options to exit the court proceedings. 'We were given 21 days to do a risk assessment and impact analysis so that if we go out of court and find other amicable ways to resolve the problem,' Francois said. She also said the Transport Ministry was willing to work with the RAF once they had done the proper risk assessment and impact analysis. 'There is going to be a serious impact on the business of the RAF because there are other legal implications around that decision,' she said. Hlengwa confirmed that the RAF board made the request. 'The board has arrived at a determination, and they want 21 days, and we granted those 21 days to see how we, in a responsible manner, facilitate the withdrawal of the court action and apply the standards as it is and at the same time, find appropriate standards.' Hlengwa was due to meet the Accounting Standards Board on Thursday to fast-track the completion of the appropriate accounting standards for the RAF. 'I want to reiterate the position of the ministry on that matter. We don't believe that the RAF should be in court on this matter. We have communicated that clearly and firmly, and we have been met with a response, which is simply a NO.' Hlengwa noted that the RAF was in the Constitutional Court after the SCA judgment, and that action was taken without the support of the ministry. 'That support won't be forthcoming. Because we believe this is a matter that, after three adverse court judgments, should not be proceeding,' he said. He confirmed that the decision to take the matter to the apex court was taken with dissent within the board. 'As a result of that decision, the papers to the court, I am advised, were signed by the CEO, not the chairperson of the board, whom I am told was not in agreement with onward proceeding to the Concourt and, therefore, the board resolved to delegate the signing of the papers to the CEO.' This was dismissed by the executives who were at the board's meeting, saying there was no dissent within the board. CFO Bernice Potgieter said: 'The board voted on continuing and there was no dissenting vote. After that, she had doubts.' Francois confirmed that the board decision was reached after questions raised were not answered at the meeting, and the CEO was appointed to sign the papers instead. 'I did make it clear that if my questions are not answered, I would not be able to sign because I am not comfortable with the decision,' she said. The turn of events comes amid Transport Minister Barbara Creecy announcing last month that she was considering a financial misconduct investigation into the board for pursuing the ongoing litigation against the A-G. The RAF has raked in a massive R10.8 million in legal fees to date. Creecy told Parliament that she and Hlengwa were on record stating that the RAF should not proceed with the legal action. 'And should they do so, I will initiate a financial misconduct investigation into the board as this might constitute a violation of Section 83.1 of the Public Finance Management Act,' she said during a question-and-answer session.
IOL News
08-05-2025
- Business
- IOL News
Minister Creecy ponders financial misconduct probe against RAF board
Transport Minister Barbara Creecy is considering investigating financial misconduct against the board of the Road Accident Fund. Image: GCIS Transport Minister Barbara Creecy is contemplating an investigation into the financial misconduct by the board of directors of the Road Accident Fund (RAF). This potential probe arises from the ongoing litigation between the RAF and the Office of the Auditor-General (A-G). Creecy revealed this during a question session in the National Assembly on Wednesday when asked about litigation involving the RAF, with DA MP Chris Hunsinger voicing concerns about the RAF's persistence in legal proceedings against the A-G. Hunsinger said the Pretoria High Court had dismissed RAF's legal challenge against the A-G and that many see the institution's stubbornness in not following the prescribed accounting standards as an indictment of the RAF's management and board. 'Do you think, Minister, it is fair to utilise taxpayer money for these seemingly pointless yet planned judicial challenges?' asked Hunsinger. In her response, Creecy stated that she and her deputy Mkhuleko Hlengwa were on record that the RAF should not to proceed with the legal action. 'And should they do so, I will initiate a financial misconduct investigation of the board as this might constitute a violation of section 83.1 of the Public Finance Management Act,' she said. The RAF has petitioned the President of the Supreme Court of Appeal after the same court refused to hear their leave to appeal after it lost an application in the Pretoria High Court to review and set aside the A-G's 2020-21 disclaimer audit report following its failure to interdict its publication. The RAF undertook the legal action despite the Transport Department, instructing it to find a solution to the dispute that was sparked by a finding on its finances by the A-G. The A-G had found that the International Public Sector Accounting Standards 42 RAF used, was inappropriate and significantly different to the South African Standards of Generally Recognised Accounting Practice. Meanwhile, Creecy confirmed that RAF has obtained an interim interdict against SARS in a dispute about diesel refunds claimed by Eskom. This after SARS and Eskom entered into a settlement agreement in which the taxman contended it was obliged to pay Eskom R5,1 billion that was to be deducted from the RAF. She said although the RAF declared a dispute in terms of the Intergovernmental Relationship Framework Act, SARS deducted the first tranche of about R1,2 billion from the RAF. 'The Road Accident Fund approached the court for relief and the interim relief was granted against SARS,' Creecy said, adding that SARS was interdicted from deducting the R 5,1 billion or any part thereof from the fund. However, she said SARS was still entitled to make other statutory deductions, which were not related to the disputed R5,1 billion. 'The interim interdict will remain operative until such time as the dispute that was declared by the applicant (RAF) and the first respondent (SARS) has been resolved or the process has been terminated.' Creecy also said if the dispute was not resolved, RAF will be entitled to institute proceedings to prohibit SARS from recouping the R5,1 billion. 'This interdict is an interim interdict. Once the merits of the case have been considered by the court the department will then comply with the final decisions of the court order,' she said. 'This process must run the 45 days on the intergovernmental dispute as determined by the court. Should that fail, RAF obviously, in terms of this interim court order, is entitled to institute further legal proceedings against SARS.' [email protected]
