Group faults Oando’s claim of unfair treatment

161 Views

The Consolidated Capital Market Stakeholders Forum (CCMSF), has taken a swipe at insinuations that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), was unfair to Oando Plc in the report of the forensic audit recently released.

The SEC had recently wielded the big stick against Wale Tinubu, banning him and his deputy; Omamofe Boyo, from being directors of any publicly quoted company for five years infractions committed as leaders of oil and energy company, Oando Plc.

The SEC also demanded the resignation of Tinubu, and other board members and the convening of an extra-ordinary general meeting ‪before July 1,‬ to appoint new directors.

According to the President, CCMSF, Umar Usman, noted with great concern the level the issues surrounding the forensic audit of Oando Plc has degenerated by comparing it to the Ecobank Transnational Incorporated (ETI) case.

Umar said: “The Oando issue was a forensic audit, ETI was corporate governance audit. The scopes were totally different; they were not the same. It is laughable that they are being compared.

Also, during the ETI investigation, it is on record that the ETI management and board co-operated with SEC, they did not take SEC to court to stop the investigation, they did not publish things about SEC in papers like we are seeing now.

“Remember when this audit was to commence initially, Oando took SEC to court and that delayed the entire process. The management too was not co-operative from the beginning. With ETI, the management co-operated from the beginning of the investigation till the end.”

Umar noted that in the Oando’s case, the auditors engaged the management, which they resisted initially, adding that it was much later that the forensic audit was allowed to go on.

“After they had taken SEC to court and questioned our powers to carry out the audit. The forensic audit corroborated the investigation earlier conducted so they had every opportunity to have presented their facts. They seem to suggest that unless their explanation is accepted, it is not fair.

“The Chairman and MD of ETI had to leave their positions in their time, they did not question SEC. They left and did not take SEC to court to question its powers. They (Oando) cannot insist that SEC must follow what they are saying. They had presented explanations, but SEC was not satisfied and went ahead to take action.

On the issue of an Administrative Proceedings Committee (APC), not being in place in SEC, Umar advised those peddling such information to go through the relevant law properly, as the law does not state that APC must be convened before companies are sanctioned, since the choice of APC is at the discretion of management.

Source: GUARDIAN

You may also like...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *