Firstly, please read the guidance document posted on this website under Public Resources- "Internal Auditors Intimidated for Blowing the Whistle". It provides clear guidance on how to proceed when thinking about blowing the whistle (also referred to as making a protected disclosure).
Contact your own professional body for advice. All participating organisations have received guidance and training on how to assist their members.
Upon receipt of the complaint (and/or dossier of information), the participating professional body may refer the matter to the AEPF Evaluation Panel if necessary. The Evaluation Panel will discuss the case, and recommend a course of action. Typically such action may be a referral to an authority such as the Auditor General, Public Protector or Public Service Commission.
You will be notified by your professional body as soon as possible regarding the course of action taken.
Criteria for reviewing cases
The AEPF reviews matters reported by the AEPF -IIASA, IRMSA, SAICA, SAIPA, Corruption Watch, The Ethics Institute, IOD SA, ACFE SA, as well as our forum members; CSSA, FPI, SACIA and OPSA
The AEPF reviews matters that concern whistleblowing, corruption, unethical behaviour and practises, fraud and governance and gives guidance and recommendations only to complainants.
Members reporting cases to the AEPF must have exhausted all internal process at their working organisations.
The case matter should then then be reported at the Professional membership level following exhausting the matter at the working organisation.
The Professional membership will then refer the case matter to the AEPF if the matter meets the case criteria.
All cases will be reviewed on merit.
No police or court cases will be reviewed.
No cases older than 2 years will be reviewed.
No cases from outside of the AEPF membership will be reviewed.
Each case will be given a case no and filed as such for reference purposes.
The AEPF independent evaluations panel may request for all information necessary from the complainant in order to review a case in chronological order.
Recommendations from the AEPF are solely based on factual information provided as given from the panel of experts who, voluntarily commit to membership on the AEPF Evaluations Panel.
Correspondence on case matters may take time for reviews and feedback from the AEPF.