LOBAMBA – The Auditor General has criticised FINCORP for retaining the same external audit firm throughout its 30-year existence.
Auditor General Timothy Matsebula argued that the practice falls short of good corporate governance standards and may deprive the institution of fresh professional perspectives.
The matter emerged during FINCORP’s appearance before the Public Accounts Committee, where management was responding to issues raised in the Auditor General’s report.
Addressing the committee, Matsebula expressed concern over the length of time the corporation had relied on the same audit firm and questioned whether the arrangement represented value for money.
He said he had raised the matter with FINCORP management on more than one occasion, noting that best practice encourages the periodic rotation of auditors to ensure independence and provide new insights into an organisation’s operations and financial reporting processes.
Matsebula further argued that regularly testing the market through competitive tendering could improve service quality and ensure the institution benefits from a broader range of professional expertise.
Responding to the concerns, FINCORP Chief Executive Officer Dumisani Msibi acknowledged that the corporation had worked with the same audit firm for many years.
However, he maintained that appointments had not been automatic and that the organisation followed established procurement procedures whenever audit contracts reached the end of their terms.
“It is true that we have used the same auditors for many years. However, every five years we go out to tender in line with procurement requirements. The current contract is coming to an end and the auditors, like other interested firms, will again have an opportunity to tender,” he said.
Msibi explained that the procurement process was conducted through the Eswatini Public Procurement Regulatory Agency (ESPPRA), with bids evaluated in accordance with applicable regulations.
According to the CEO, one of the key challenges facing FINCORP is the limited number of large audit firms operating in Eswatini.
He said the country no longer had the range of major international audit firms that once operated locally, narrowing the pool of potential service providers.
As a result, FINCORP has frequently found itself reappointing the same auditors after competitive tender processes, often due to factors such as cost, capacity and the specialised requirements associated with the corporation’s operations.
Msibi noted that FINCORP manages international borrowings of approximately E1.3 billion and is accountable to several international financiers and development partners.
He explained that any audit firm appointed by the corporation must be capable of meeting the reporting standards and compliance requirements expected by international lenders, including development finance institutions and multilateral funding agencies.
“Many of the funds we manage come from international lenders. When appointing auditors, we have to consider whether they can satisfy the requirements of institutions such as the European development finance partners and other international stakeholders to whom we submit financial reports,” he said.
While defending the procurement process followed by the corporation, Msibi acknowledged that the concern raised by the Auditor General was also shared by FINCORP’s board and management.
He said the institution recognised the value of bringing in fresh perspectives through auditor rotation and remained hopeful that the upcoming procurement process would produce a different outcome.
The CEO stressed that although the audit firm had remained the same, FINCORP had implemented partner rotation within the firm over the years to promote independence and objectivity.
“What has happened over the years is that the audit partners have been rotated. It has never been the same individual auditor throughout the period. We have changed partners within the firm as part of maintaining professional standards,” he said.
He added that FINCORP would soon commence a new tender process and that management remained open to appointing a different audit firm should a suitable alternative emerge through the competitive bidding process.
Leave a comment