Tag: CorporateGovernance

When organisations conduct due diligence on a new customer, supplier or business partner, they often feel reassured once they verify the basics. The company registration checks out, the directors are identified, and the necessary documentation has been collected. The onboarding process then moves forward with confidence.

The Companies Amendment Act provisions that took effect on 22 May 2026 introduce amendments to section 30 (annual financial statements), sections 30A and 30B (remuneration policies and remuneration reports), and section 166 (alternative dispute resolution) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) should be embraced, but deception should not be, and South African businesses should understand that Europe’s AI rules may apply even if they have no office in Europe.

South Africa has been fighting corruption with legislation that, frankly, lacked teeth. The Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act 12 of 2004 (PRECCA) has long been the cornerstone of the country's anti-corruption framework - criminalising bribery, fraud and a broad range of corrupt conduct in both the public and private sectors. The law was there. The convictions, historically, were not. That is rapidly changing.

King V reframes corporate governance as a competitive necessity. It embeds Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) factors and integrated thinking at the heart of board decision-making. The question boardrooms across South Africa are now facing is what this framework demands in practice when it comes to overseeing Artificial Intelligence (AI).

White-collar crime in Africa is no longer a predominantly domestic concern. It has expanded onto an international stage, and so has the corporate exposure that comes with it. As capital crosses borders, data moves at the speed of light, and corporate structures become more complex, economic crime has kept pace. It has become more sophisticated, more multinational and increasingly difficult to investigate and prosecute within the confines of a single legal system.

The Financial Intelligence Centre’s attempt to impose retrospective penalties for a period extending fully five years prior to the existence of any lawful authority is not merely misguided, it is a brazen affront to the rule of law.

There is a pattern emerging across boardrooms that is starting to look very familiar. Executives are excited about Artificial Intelligence (AI). Budgets are being allocated. Pilot projects are being launched. Early results are often promising. Yet, despite all this activity, very few organisations are seeing meaningful, enterprise-wide impact.

Boards spend a great deal of time asking questions. They challenge strategy, review financial performance, interrogate financial statements and revisit decisions that made sense six months ago but may no longer make sense today. That is why one question stands out: "Why are executives and boards not doing the same when it comes to their cybersecurity?" My view is simple. As organisations become more digital, it becomes increasingly difficult to justify treating cyber resilience as something that sits outside regular business discussions.

The CEO of South Africa's highest-paying JSE-listed company earns more than 6,000 times the national minimum wage, according to data published by the Labour Research Service. Across the top 20 JSE-listed employers by CEO pay, every company exceeds 939 times that benchmark.