SA Express

This is a crucial matter. Cameron Ellis his very expertise is a forensic auditor and forensic auditing is totally and conceptually different from independent external auditioning as defined in the Auditing Profession Act 2005. ISA 200 defines audit evidence as – Information used by the auditor in arriving at the conclusions on which the auditor’s opinion is based. Therefore, audit evidence must support reasonable assurance not factual assurance as required by a forensic auditor. Ellis viewed these working papers from a forensic auditor view which is much more factually based that what be required in an external audit. ISA 200 paragraph A 29 states that - Obtaining more audit evidence, however, may not compensate for its poor quality. 

Therefore, in our judgment the audit evidence was of such as poor quality we felt there was no need to spend more money obtaining more evidence when it would not compensate for the poor quality. Audit evidence is persuasive not factual or even based on probabilities.  ISA 330 para A62 states - The auditor’s judgment as to what constitutes sufficient appropriate audit evidence is influenced by such factors as the following: Persuasiveness of the audit evidence. 

Examples:

1. Role players have been left out:
1. Lillian Boyle (Chairperson)
2. CEO
3. Sindi Zilwa
4. DPE
5. AG
2. Mandate – incorrect to say unqualified audit report when it was qualified.
3. The audit files – incorrect to say 4 audit files when it was 39.
4. Cameron Ellis – RA but likely to non-attest. Not mentioned. Not an IFRS specialist.
5. Improper conduct is defined in the APA – not in the Rules. (1.3.2)
6. (1.4.4) – obvious to who – opinion.
7. Documentation received from SAX incomplete (1.4.5).
8. SA Express not interviewed. How did they get to speak to company secretary?
9. As stated they referred to telephone calls – were these calls recorded.
10. Why confidential to SA Express? (1.5.5)
11. (2.1.6) incorrect to state AG gave qualified audit opinion 2012 – they gave Disclaimer.
12. 2.1.6 is factually incorrect – evidenced by audit report. 
13. 12.2.2 – not everything needs to be documented.
14. 12.4.1 – Firer did not make these statements.
15. 12.4.2 stock count – long after event.
16. 12.4.3 – I never said that – I am not sure what I said – minutes unsigned
17. 12.4.4 – evidence of comments made on 4 April?
18. Never said the above – audit documentation proves otherwise – said needs to be re-audited.
19. Could not have said that – as I know ISA 580 does not state that – not a misrepresentation – an incorrect record of minutes – I was never given chance to see such minutes therefore could not correct. Minutes unsigned anyway. 
20. 12.4.9 – it’s the auditor duty to decide not the CFO whether there is sufficient evidence.
21. 12.4.10 – it appears – IRBA’s own opinion – speculative.
22. 12.5.6 – representation letters are not the place to set out the scope of the audit – as they are provided at the end.
23. In any case, we were not even paid for the full audit of the adjustments. 
24. 12.5.7 – there was no need as there was adequate evidence to disclaim.
25. Possible oversight at leaving out restriction.
26. 13.3.5/13/3/4 – no need for statement as self-evident.
27. 13.2.1 – see my comments about agreeing to adjustments in my independent view on charges.
28. 13.3.2 As the report says this hearsay evidence – I never said this. The CFO is stating second hand what he heard someone else say.
29. 14.1.6 – never said this at all – see my email regarding dishonesty charges. 
30. 14.1.8 this should have been in the 2011 audit file. 
31. Supported by 14.1.9 – I never misinterpreted working papers as I never said what was stated in 14.1.6.
32. 16.3.17 – Not so easy to understand. Not every auditor is as clever as Mr Cameron – Ellis – 10^th place in board exam.
33. What aggression is the report referring to?
34. The auditor general could not do this in 2012 either – were they also negligent?
35. There is no way to prove that Cameron-Ellis is correct in his audit procedures. These procedures are speculative and cannot be proven 4-6 years after the events.
36. AFS 2011 process:
1. 6 – I was not allowed to share it.
2. 7 – difference so what?
3. 16 – shows a level of aggressiveness – not all – shows a mastering of the English language. This is nonsense.
37. The issue about going concern does not say anything.
38. Again, telephone conversations – no transcripts – no support – not even hearsay – just lies. 
39. 17 – More telephonic conversations – no transcript – I do not remember these calls.
40. Lots of emails from Mrs Zilwa – have nothing to do with me.
41. Page 12 exhibit 0059 shows I was overruled then and in many other circumstances. 
42. Mr Cameron Ellis also thinks auditors are appointed by the CEO. This is of course not true – yet he makes accusations of independence on this basis. See 13.3.2.