Part (b) for 10 marks required an identification and explanation of five corporate governance weaknesses as well as a recommendation for each. Candidates performed well on this question.

Most candidates were able to confidently identify weaknesses from the scenario. However many could not explain the weakness, relying on explanations such as “this is not good corporate governance”. This was not sufficient to score the extra ½ marks available for each point. Candidates needed to be able to explain how these weaknesses impacted the company.

In addition a significant proportion of candidates misread the scenario and thought the chairman and chief executive was the same person. This was not correct; Bill Basson had been the chief executive and was now the chairman.

Hence answers focused on these key roles being held by the same person rather than the chairman not being independent and failed to score marks as a result. Candidates must read the scenario carefully before they start to write.

The recommendations provided were not adequate in many cases and often answers gave corporate governance objectives rather than recommendations, such as, “the board should be balanced between executive and non- executives”.

This is an objective; the recommendation should have been to “appoint additional non-executive directors to ensure a balanced board”.