Latest news with #SteinhoffInternational
IOL News
10-07-2025
- Business
- IOL News
How can we expect senior citizens to survive on such a paltry pension
High-stakes living does have its price Death or disappearance by design? Assassination or assisted suicide? It is my suspicion that Markus Jooste, the former CEO of Steinhoff International, never committed suicide. It was a grand scheme orchestrated to simply disappear and escape accountability, with the assistance of corrupt police and high-powered politicians. Your sister newspaper in Johannesburg, The Star, corroborates that by reporting on a recent police-source disclosure that there has not been a post-mortem or morgue number. Jooste was fined R475 million by the Financial Sector Conduct Authority for accounting fraud whereby he manipulated and systematically siphoned millions from the government's pension fund. A day before a warrant for his arrest was issued, he was said to have committed suicide by gunshot at Hermanus on March 21, 2024. Gavin Watson, the former CEO of African Global Operations (Bosasa), apparently died in a car accident in Johannesburg on August 20, 2019. The same modus operandi could have played out here. The accident happened when Watson's car collided with a concrete pillar. A case of culpable homicide was opened by SAPS. Watson's death was shrouded in controversy with some speculating about the circumstances surrounding the accident. A private pathology report hinted that Watson may have been dead before the accident. Former president Jacob Zuma, who delivered the eulogy at his funeral, hinted at the possibility of an assassination. A big-league benefactor of the ANC and Cyril Ramaphosa's presidential campaign, Watson was fingered in state-capture allegations, including bribery and money laundering, during judicial hearings in January 2019. Between 2003 and 2018, his company notched up government tenders worth R12 billion. Poised on the brink of unpredictability and careful to conceal whatever troubled thoughts lurk behind their public façade, how does one accommodate his self-concept to the reality of imminent death? You've had so many victories in life until you met someone or something you can't beat. Convicted murderer and a rape fugitive, Thabo Bester staged his own death in a jail-cell fire before escaping from prison in 2022. He was recaptured in Tanzania and currently is languishing in prison.A classic case of assisted-suicide was that of Brett Kebble, the mining magnate who was shot seven times on the night of September 27, 2005. The circumstances surrounding his death are complex and shrouded in controversy. Investigations revealed that Kebble's death was an assisted-suicide orchestrated by himself. His security chief, Clinton Nassif, reportedly hired hitmen Micky Schultz, Nigel McGurk and Faizel Smith to put Kebble in an early flight. The reasons behind Kebble's death were linked to his financial troubles and alleged corporate fraud, including the misappropriation of R2bn worth of shares from one of his companies. As a nation, we need to believe in the necessity for truth. Whether it was a 'mares nest' or not, only time will tell. For now innuendo and conjecture will continue to fan the flames of scuttlebutt around the fire, while we warm ourselves to paranoid perceptions. From the above brief accounts, we can deduce that these were individuals whose modus vivendi (way of living)was the pursuit of power and pelf, and that they were politically connected and ruthlessly embraced the lure of greed and self-aggrandisement by engaging in graft, bribery, corruption, racketeering and money laundering. | KEVIN GOVENDER uMhlatazana Our senior citizens really deserve better The more our country's people read, think and understand our so-called Government of National Unity's (GNU) support for our pensioners the more the government's insensitivity and care-not-a-damn attitude are revealed. In a survey of 90 countries where elderly people can live comfortably South Africa ranks 84th. Because of the poor support and care of government ministers, the life expectancy among our pensioners is 64, contrasting with Switzerland's 84. Even with their tested glasses and cataracts removed these ministers cannot see that they are making our senior citizens suffer. A disgraceful set of ministers who are showing no mercy are destroying the life of our poor, old age citizens. In South Africa pensioners receive a piddling R2 200 per month. Zambia provides a pension equivalent to R3 830 per month. What has gone wrong in this country? How can these old people live when they face innumerable challenges almost daily in their twilight years? They have to look for money to pay rent, pay for services, buy food, pay for medical expenses, pay school fees, and take care of university education, attend to different kinds of sickness and have a whole lot of other worries. Yet the 'kings' of this country, that is ministers and parliamentarians, are living in the lap of luxury at the expense of the taxpayer. You and I are being robbed. Ministers earn in excess of R300 000 per month, pensioners get R2 200. How do these ministers sleep at night? Knowing how corrupt some of these so-called 'leaders' sitting in Cape Town are, is it possible that they are taking heavy drugs?These drugs have an effect on their thinking capacity because some come to parliament to sleep. Incidentally many sleep with their eyes open. I want to offer two pieces of advice to our lawmakers: ■ Increase old-age pension to a minimum of R3 830 per month. ■ Give every pensioner a bonus cheque during Christmas – that is give them a double payment in December. However, if these so-called 'leaders' feel guilty, they could ask treasury to pay all parliamentarians and ministers only 10% of what they get. Since I am still an IFP member, I would ask all ministers and the deputy ministers of the IFP to move a motion in parliament according to my proposal. If Dr Mangosutho Buthelezi were alive were alive today, he would fire all of them. | KAMAL PANDAY Reservoir Hills Great idea. Let's roll back climate change Last Thursday's image of high-rise buildings towering into the sky is very significant. It was like trees in a jungle competing with one another for sunlight. But only here it seems the high-rise buildings in China's Chongqing municipality were reaching up into the sky for fresh air! It looks so dense it could be suffocating. How dreary the picture looks! All over the world there's an influx of people from rural villages into the cities because they are seeking the comforts of the modern world. As this trend gains momentum, there's a proliferation of man- made concrete jungles, like the one in Chongqing. Modern man does not plant trees, instead he builds concrete jungles, but they come at a heavy price. The globe's population explosion has seen the rapid spread of urban life with disastrous consequences for the environment, ecosystems and wild life. If you want to know why so many natural disasters – from droughts to wildfires to floods, among other – are occurring around the world, look no further than our smog-filled cities. It is unchecked human activity that's at the root of climate change. Temperatures in Europe are soaring because it is heavily urbanised. There were record-breaking temperatures in June. Of course, there are others who will dispute this, but how blind could they be? Concern is mounting worldwide about the ever-increasing temperatures. Our country has joined the growing chorus of voices calling for measures to halt climate change and the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment has an ambitious plan to plant a million trees on Heritage Day. Wonderful idea! I hope this initiative gains ground and we can roll back climate change. | T Markandan Kloof DAILY NEWS
IOL News
26-05-2025
- Business
- IOL News
Beyond the boardroom: the true weight of directorship
In the evolving architecture of corporate governance, there is often confusion between having a seat at the table and truly discharging the duties that come with it, says the author. Image: Pixabay You can sit on a board and still fall short of leadership. In the evolving architecture of corporate governance, there is often confusion between having a seat at the table and truly discharging the duties that come with it. Being a director is not ceremonial; it is a fiduciary commitment. One that demands more than occasional attendance and rubber-stamping decisions. It demands diligence, judgement, independence, and above all, accountability. Too often, we invoke the language of 'oversight' or 'strategy' in vague terms. But what does it actually mean to govern well? South African company law sets the standard with quiet clarity. Directors must act honestly and with the care and skill expected of someone entrusted with protecting the interests of others. They must remain free of conflicts, act in the best interests of the company and make informed decisions. It is not the avoidance of mistakes that protects directors. It is the demonstration of proper conduct and reasonable judgement. When directors fall short of this, consequences follow. And those consequences are not 2017, the Steinhoff International scandal sent shockwaves through boardrooms across the country. What was once considered a darling of the JSE unravelled into a cautionary tale of unchecked ambition, accounting irregularities and weak board oversight. While much of the public narrative focused on Markus Jooste and the executive team, scrutiny inevitably turned to the board. What did the non-executive directors know? When did they know it? And did they ask the right questions, or any questions at all? A forensic investigation found failures in financial oversight, with billions in overstated profits and fabricated deals across subsidiaries. The board had approved complex transactions it did not fully understand, and in some cases, did so without full disclosure from management. But here lies the critical point: ignorance is not a defence. Directors are expected to take reasonable steps to remain informed. If a director lacks financial literacy or sectoral knowledge, it is their duty to acquire it, or to probe until they understand. The law does not shield those who look away. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Several Steinhoff directors later resigned, reputations tarnished, as the company's value collapsed and lawsuits mounted. Whether or not each individual director was complicit in fraud became secondary. What mattered was whether they had fulfilled their duty of care. And for many, the record showed they had not. Contrast this with a very different, but equally telling case: Capitec Bank, which in 2018 faced an aggressive short-seller report accusing it of reckless lending and misleading financial statements. The board was thrust into a high-stakes moment. But instead of panicking, Capitec's leadership responded with transparency, data and composure. They engaged the regulator, issued detailed counterstatements and clarified the business model to the public. The regulator's subsequent investigation found no evidence of wrongdoing, vindicating the board's approach. Within weeks, investor confidence began to return. What set Capitec apart was not luck, but governance. Long before the crisis, the bank had invested in a strong board culture, characterised by diversity in expertise, rigorous processes and shared values. Directors were regularly briefed on emerging risks, encouraged to challenge assumptions and given access to independent advisors. So, when the moment came to exercise judgement under pressure, they were ready. They acted with the care, skill and diligence that governance demands and the law respects. These two cases reveal a profound truth about directorship: liability hinges not on the decisions themselves, but on how they are made. South African law recognises this. Directors who act in good faith, are free from conflict, are properly informed and act in the best interests of the company remain protected, even if the outcome of their decision proves flawed. This is the essence of the Business Judgment Rule. While the rule rewards rigor rather than results, true rigor demands more than mere rubber-stamping. It offers no blanket immunity, only fairness to those who demonstrate they properly applied their judgement and followed due process. But herein lies the trap: too many directors confuse consensus with sound judgement, and compliance with conscience. They nod through meetings, approve budgets they haven't read and outsource thinking to consultants or executives. In so doing, they betray not only the company, but also the very purpose of the govern is to care enough to confront. To be curious. To demand clarity. And to accept that duty is not always convenient. It is the director who speaks when others stay silent that earns the law's protection, not the one who watches passively and signs off anyway. There is no shortage of charters or codes. What we lack, at times, is courage. Courage to ask the uncomfortable questions, to speak when silence is safer, to act when others defer and to hold the line when it would be easier to look away. As we reflect on what it means to serve on a board, particularly in a climate of mounting public scrutiny, economic pressure and stakeholder activism, it becomes clear that the title 'director' must be reclaimed as a moral imperative, not just a legal obligation. Why? Because when things go wrong, and they often do, the question will not be whether you were in the room. The question will be what you did when you considering the true responsibility of directorship, I offer these questions for reflection: ⦁ Do you understand the company's risks well enough to explain them to a stranger? ⦁ Are you engaging with management critically, or merely observing from a distance? ⦁ Can you evidence how your decisions have been made, and why? ⦁ And, perhaps most importantly, if your decisions were challenged in hindsight, would they reflect good faith and sound judgement?Because directorship is not a shield. It is a spotlight. And it shines brightest when things go dark. Nqobani Mzizi is a Professional Accountant (SA), Cert. Dir (IoDSA) and an Academic. Image: Supplied
