I guess its following this directive by the regulator..

www.nation.co.ke/Feature...8/-/gpu11tz/-/index.html

What concerns me is whether the auditors/consultants will find 'losses' that have occurred due to past weaknesses. When George Gareth came to KCB, he found large non-performing loans on the books. Huge under-performing loans. KCB was technically bankrupt. Ergo, these (potential) losses, if any, will have to be provided for...

It is the wrong move. They should instead strengthen their risk department by having risk represented at the senior most level and improving the skills of the staff.

I am from a big 4 background and have worked in insurance, in audit and risk and I can tell you that KPMG staff will not have the skills required to evaluate Kenya Re's risk department. They are better off hiring consultants who may have passed through audit but moved in to business and acquired the skills on how a business runs, the industry it operates in, systems and processes.

Risks such as reputation loss, fraud, balance sheet management (need actuarial skills for this), Asset Liability mismatches, systems failure, business continuity...big 4 firms may say otherwise but they cant afford the calibre of individuals with the necessary experience.
They hire sharp graduates but cant afford to keep them and majority leave after only 3 years. Kenya Re will most likely get a team composed of a senior consultant - (3 or 4 years), a new recruit and a manager who has may be 8 or so years. Note that the actual work is performed by the new recruit under the supervsion of the Senior consultant ( charge out rates per hour of between Sh 4,500 and Sh 10,000). A partner costs in excess of Sh 30,000 per hour these days so he will spent minimum time on your project.

It is the wrong move; they wont get value for money.

Mckinsey are actually turn around experts. The company is staffed by brains from the best business schools around the world, people who have worked for many years.

KQ hired them before and achieved remarkable improvement. It was the same with KCB. Your argument is valid that KCB new that they were overstaffed, but it is in redefining the skills that KCB needed vis a vis what it had that Mckinsey was instrumental in. KCB had factions aligned according to tribe and the staff was highly politicised. That is why Gareth George, a white man not expected to take sides was hired. To break up the camps. He did. He was also hired to provide stability at a time when the bank couled easily have gone down under non performing loans. The hiring of MOO as is deputy was strategic as he was asked to drive growth....hence the deal in South Sudan under a tree to open branches there. Mckinsey were value for money. They were hired to do what they do best.

KPMG are experts at offering assurance of limited nature; that financial statements are true and fair, not materially misstated. That opinion does not mean that accounts are not misstated, only that the misstatement is not material...it would not change the opinion of a user of the financial statements about the company's financial affairs.

KPMG are not risk experts.

KPMG has so many departments ...this task will fall into the Risk consulting docket... i can tell you that there are very qualified and experienced staff there and that Kenya re will get value for their money... looks like your background is in audit(assurance) and that you quit after the 3 years you are talking about but as much as staff turnover is high, teams are balanced in terms of experience and knowledge and value is often delivered...