QUESTION 1
(20 MARKS)
SilverPeak Construction (Pty) Ltd is a medium-sized Namibian construction and engineering
company specializing in large infrastructure projects, including roads, schools, and public
housing. The company has been under increasing financial pressure due to rising input costs,
delayed government payments, and fierce competition from larger regional firms. To stabilize
its cash flows and meet pressing debt obligations, the company has been aggressively
pursuing government contracts, particularly housing tenders.
On 10 September while performing the audit for the financial year ended 30 June 2025, the
audit partner, Ms. Nandago, identified unusual bank transfers while reviewing SilverPeak's
financial records. A payment of N$2.8 million made in April 2025 raised concern. The transfer
was directed to Kavango Business Advisory, an unregistered consultancy whose records could
not be verified. Further checks revealed that the entity was owned by a close associate of the
Chief Financial Officer (CFO), Mr. Shilongo.
When queried, Mr. Shilongo explained that the payment was a "facilitation fee" aimed at
helping the company secure a lucrative government housing tender worth over N$120
million . The payment was neither authorised by the Board nor supported by a written
agreement. Instead, it was misclassified as 'Consulting Expenses' in the financial statements
and deliberately concealed from shareholders and regulators.
Ms. Nandago was convinced that this constituted a reportable irregularity, and on 10
September 2025, she called to formally reported the matter to the Public Accountants and
Auditors Board (PAAB) in line with her obligations.
On 18 September 2025, the company's management was formally notified of the issue and
asked to provide an explanation . On 25 October 2025, Ms. Nandago convened a meeting with
SilverPeak's senior management to address the matter. At this meeting, management
downplayed the transaction, describing it as an "accounting error" and not an intentional act
of wrongdoing. Ms. Nandago accepted management's explanation and deemed the matter
resolved. She subsequently removed the finding from her audit documentation.
Required:
a) Would you agree with Ms. Nandago that this constitutes a reportable irregularity in terms
of the Auditing Profession Act 6 of 2005? Provide reasons to support your answer. (10)
b) Assuming this is a reportable irregularity, has Ms. Nandago followed the correct
procedures after confirming or finding out that a reportable irregularity had occurred?(l0)
2