DATE OF SUBMISSION: 1 OCTOBER 2010
NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
Â
QUESTION 2566
QUESTION FOR WRITTEN REPLY
2566. Mr S Motau (DA) to ask the Minister of Energy:
With reference to the forensic audit report on irregularities at PetroSA by
a certain company (Gobodo Forensic & Investigative Accounting), (a) what
process was followed regarding the appointment of the auditors, (b) why was
the office of the Auditor-General not requested to conduct the forensic
audit, (c) what terms of reference were given to the company, (d) what were
the costs associated with the forensic audit of PetroSA and (e) what were
the findings of the forensic auditing company? NW3207E
REPLY
a) The company, Gobodo Forensic & Investigative Accounting was appointed
by the Board of Directors.
b) The Board having considered various options opted for a company that
specialises in forensic audits.
c) The company was requested to investigate the allegations of misconduct
in PetroSA that had been reported in the media, specifically, the
Financial Mail.
d) The cost associated with the forensic audit of PetroSA was R1.5
million.
e) The findings of the forensic audit was that whilst some of the
allegations were baseless and could not be sustained, the rest of
allegations required closer attention and they presented prima facie
evidence that some Executives within PetroSA may have contravened the
policies of PetroSA.