Governance bowed to corruption

Many times when scandals happen in an entity, particularly an entity established within the provisions of the Companies Act; as a Governance Practitioner, the questions I ask myself are; where were the governance checks and balances (Company Secretary, Governing body/ the board, Auditor and ethical officer among others)? Why didn’t the internal or external auditor pick up the dubious deals? Where was the company secretary? How effective is the whistle-blowers policy of the company? Why did it take so long for corruption to be detected?

The four mainly recognized governance checks and balances positions are the;

CEO

Chairman of the Board

Company Secretary 

External Auditor 

King IV in its own ways advocates for these positions to be independent with the aim of promoting transparency and above all to make ethical decisions. This is an international recognized control system. In Namibia, many of the state owned enterprises (SOEs) are established in terms of their respective parliament Acts, of which many are not compelled to be formed as duly companies in terms of the Companies Act. Consequences of this serious governance gap are evidently seen. When governance is compromised by poor legislation, organizational structures and policies on it is own is an inducement to corruption. 

The other issues that disturb me a lot is the fact that the Namibia Company Act (28/2004) provisions do not make it mandatory for a company to have a company secretary. For us to curb corruption we first have to strengthen our governance tools, and thereafter enjoy favorable results. As a nation we could now learn from Enron, ESKOM or Steinhoff cases and kickoff to sharpen, our governance tools like an artist sharpen a pencil for a quality drawing. 

By:

Onesmus K Joseph - ACIS/BAP/CFIP/PPL

MPHIL Candidate - KNUST (Kumasi; Ghana) 

Governance Practitioner

josephonesmus@yahoo.com