The furore over Mac Maharaj raises a concern about the independence of so-called independent directors.

King 2 states that "an executive director is generally taken to be an individual in the full-time employ of the company with executive responsibilities".

"Nonexecutive directors should be free from any business relationship with the company and should fulfil their duties intermittently at board meetings and any other meetings of the company that they are required to attend".

From the press releases by FirstRand, it seems that Maharaj was an employee of the bank. Reference is made to perks that were terminated and it appears as if he was treated like a senior employee.

From the size of his salary or director's fees it would seem that the bank would be able to demand or get a sizeable amount of his time.

The nonexecutive chairman of another large bank in Simmonds Street has, so I am told, a large executive suite on the penthouse level of the bank's headquarters from which he conducts his bank and other business, and I am sure the same applies in many other large corporates across the country.

Are individuals who are so closely dependent on the companies able to be among those who can protect shareholder (including minority) interests?

Is the cost of the plush offices, secretarial services, etc, provided to them included in the directors' emoluments? It seems that King 2 might still need some beefing up.

Henry Watermeyer, Lyndhurst

With acknowledgements to Henry Watermeyer and the Business Day.