Molefe’s reappointment underlines an imperative for transparency: IoDSA
Wednesday, 17 May 2017
The public outcry against the decision taken by the Eskom Board and Public Enterprises
Minister Lynne Brown to reinstate Brian Molefe as CEO, demonstrates how important
transparency is to good corporate governance. Parmi Natesan, Executive, Centre for
Corporate Governance, Institute of Directors in Southern Africa (IoDSA) says that a lack of
transparency casts doubts on the good faith of an organisation’s leadership —and raises
questions about the long-term sustainability of the organisation.
“There have been differing public statements about this issue, and each one of them raises
important questions about a key institution that is largely funded by public money and
provides a service that is vital to the economy,” says Ms Natesan. “If unresolved, these
questions could materially affect an organisation’s credibility and legitimacy with its
stakeholders.”
When Mr Molefe’s bona fides were queried in the Public Protector’s State of Capture report
in 2016, he stepped down very publicly, citing the “interests of good corporate governance”.
There has however, been a failure to share what has changed since then to have convinced
him and the board that his reappointment would now serve good corporate governance.
It has emerged that Mr Molefe was entitled to receive a very large gratuity in line with
“early retirement”, even though he had stepped down under something of a cloud.
“It is assumed that the board had a rational reason for accepting his request for early
retirement, and that it was in line with company policy, but in the absence of any
explanation, this action would seem to confirm the public perception that Mr Molefe is an
individual who enjoys extraordinary rights.” Ms Natesan argues. “Accountability and
transparency are even more vital when public funds are in question and the national
interest adversely impacted.”
The same lack of transparency is evident now in the decision to reinstate Mr Molefe as CEO,
she continues. If we are to take it that the board has reversed its earlier decision to accept
Mr Molefe’s stepping down, which it is clearly entitled to do, the grounds for this should be
articulated.
State-owned companies have a particularly strong need for transparency because the lines
of accountability between board, shareholders and executives are somewhat less defined
than in the private sector. The Minister, as representative of the shareholder, has a far
greater say over executive appointments than the board, but as the King IV Report on
Corporate Governance makes clear, good practice requires that the appointment of the CEO
of a SOC should be a robust and transparent process that involves the the board to the
greatest extent possible, even if the Minister representing government has the right to
make the final appointment”.
“Without any explanation, the reasonable person might well conclude that there has been
undue outside interference, as many media reports—and the Public Protector’s report—
suggest,” Ms Natesan concludes. “The CEO is critical to the success of any organisation; and
it is imperative that a CEO has the full support and trust of the board. It is difficult to see
how Mr Molefe can deliver on his mandate with the clouds of suspicion gathering. Both the
board and the Minister have an obligation to act in the organisation’s best interest. That
also means they should offer the nation full accountability and transparency and disclosure
on this reinstatement.”
|