Former Steinhoff CEO Markus Jooste agrees to appear before Parliament

28 August 2018 - 15:44 By Linda Ensor
Former Steinhoff CEO Markus Jooste.
Former Steinhoff CEO Markus Jooste.
Image: Jeremy Glyn

Former Steinhoff CEO Markus Jooste has agreed to appear before Parliament on September 5.

He will face questions by members of Parliament's finance‚ trade and industry‚ public accounts and public service and administration committees about the collapse of the global furniture retailer‚ in what will be the first public pronouncements made by him since he resigned from the group in December last year.

Jooste has kept a very low profile and not said anything publicly about the collapse of the group since he left. Jooste's departure was prompted by the revelation of accounting irregularities in the group which precipitated a dramatic slide in the Steinhoff share price.

The questions by MPs have been strictly circumscribed however in terms of an agreement reached between Jooste‚ acting secretary to Parliament Penelope Tyawa and finance committee chairman Yunus Carrim in the Western Cape High Court on Tuesday before Ms Acting Justice Deidre Kusevitsky.

In terms of the agreement of court‚ Tyawa agreed to withdraw the summons issued for Jooste to appear at the meeting on Wednesday.

Jooste agreed to appear before the committees on September 5 and not Wednesday this week. The four committees will continue with their meeting on Wednesday‚ at which former CFO Ben La Grange has agreed to appear. Regulators will also give an update on their investigations into Steinhoff.

Jooste agreed to appear on September 5 and to give evidence under oath and to be questioned "to identify any institutional flaws and challenges existing in the relevant financial regulatory framework or any implementation challenges in the financial regulatory framework which might have caused or given rise to the collapse of the value of Steinhoff shares".

Jooste had refused to appear voluntarily before Parliament on the grounds that he was no longer CEO and could not answer questions on behalf of the group and also because there was the possibility that he could prejudice himself in relation to any future criminal or civil cases.

- BusinessLIVE