By BO Staff Writer
The white owned, multinational auditing firm, KPMG has been embroiled in a cloud of scandal in Southern Africa. Unfortunately for us, white monopoly capital and white owned media has managed to pick out what suits its agenda and leave out other scandalous acts of the firm.
Today, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA) grilled the auditing firm on it’s recent retractions of certain parts of a report on the South African Revenue Services (SARS) rogue unit and KPMG’s subsequent faux philantrophy after the scandal.
In the SCOPA sitting, new KPMG CEO Nhlama Dlomu, the black woman who has now been put at the front to face the backlash of corrupt work done by white men previously, stuttered and stammered through her unclear answers. KPMG was unable to answer why the SARS report was only partially retracted and why KPMG international had to be roped in to review this particular report. The auditing firm could also not answer as to why it decided to refund SARS the whole R23 million paid for the report, while only a third of the report was retracted by KPMG international.
SCOPA also put forward the question of what would happen to the previous reports, and individuals responsible, that the firm had done and if those can be deemed reliable.
In terms of the work done in previous years, KPMG said it would review work done. The CEO said historical “high risk engagements” would be rechecked by KPMG, but SCOPA was sceptical of this as a body cannot do wrong and still investigate itself.
SCOPA highlighted that in terms of the rogue unit, the role of the previous finance minister needs to be further investigated and not left in murky waters. KPMG needs to clarify whether there is a rogue unit or not and what implications it has for all those involved in it.
From the questions and answers, it became clear that the extractions of certain parts of the rogue unit report only involve the role of Gordhan and sought to absolve Gordhan from any wrong doing – if not cast doubt in popular opinion about his role in criminal activity at SARS.
The general work conducted by KPMG was questioned. SCOPA found it exceptionally aggravating that the firm is not concerned with the well being of the country and is rather concerned with profits. They found it more desirable for the state auditor (Auditor General) to carry the load of auditing the state, rather than a private entity, which has international interests.
Last month, black consciousness formation, Black First Land First (BLF) correctly pointed out that, “the scandal of how KPMG was forced to withdraw its report that shows that Pravin Gordhan is a criminal has been suppressed. The media has quickly turned the scandal into the relationship between Gupta companies and KPMG. The media has removed from the public the fact that KPMG has investigated Pravin Gordhan and found evidence that he had illegally operated a spy unit during his time as head of the South African Revenue Services (SARS).”
The sitting exposed some of the sides of the story which the white ownedm media will not cover.
KPMG has been responsible for a number of reports which have put a number of politicians in jail or under scrutiny for their alleged crimes. Strangely, this was overwhelmingly welcomed when it was “undesirable” politicians on the chopping block. When it was the chief ring leader of anti-radical economic transformation rhetoric being investigated, Pravin Gordhan, KPMG international was roped in to pick out sections of the scathing report on Gordhan’s role in the SARS rogue unit.
The roping in of the international arm of the auditing firm was never implemented when it was Jackie Selebi or President Jacob Zuma under the microscope.
The case of KPMG’s scandals also speaks to the racist nature with which white monopoly capital operates. The white, multinational firm has had multiple companies retracting their accounts from the firm, but none of the banks have closed the accounts of the company. Why is this the case? If it can be taken that the banks close the accounts of companies which are “reputational risks”, as white people called it with Oakbay, then is KPMG not a reputational risk?
As mentioned in SCOPA, KPMG does a lot of work with the state, including auditing and consulting, and millions have gone down the drain in reports and reviews which have not yielded any results. The IFMS scandal is a case in point. The question then is why isn’t KPMG labeled as a state capturer?