SA’s law enforcement agencies are at odds about whether they knew about the private investigation initiated by former Eskom CEO André de Ruyter into crime, sabotage and corruption at the power utility.
In a briefing to parliament’s standing committee on public accounts (Scopa) on Tuesday, national police commissioner Gen Fannie Masemola corroborated De Ruyter’s claim that he informed law enforcement about the investigation.
However, the Hawks and the police minister denied knowledge of the investigation.
The Hawks said that what it knew about the involvement of a private investigator was learnt from media reports and from a report submitted by De Ruyter’s lawyers one day before his appearance before Scopa.
Police minister Bheki Cele also denied knowledge of the private investigation.
Cele said De Ruyter also did not provide a single report which stated that an “individual politician was involved” in corruption at Eskom.
However, according to Masemola, he did not know the specifics of the investigation and was not aware of “intelligence gathering”.
Scopa was briefed on Tuesday by the SA Police Service (SAPS), the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (Hawks) and the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) on allegations of corruption made by De Ruyter.
Scopa called De Ruyter to appear on April 26 to answer questions about allegations he made during a television interview broadcast on e.tv on February 21. These included claims about the involvement of criminal cartels, with links to high-ranking ANC members and state officials, in crime and corruption activities at Eskom. He also said that he shared his suspicions with a minister.
It has emerged that the source of information for some of these allegations was a privately funded intelligence investigation initiated by De Ruyter and conducted by George Fivaz Forensic & Risk, a company owned by former police commissioner George Fivaz.
Defamation
The ANC is moving to sue De Ruyter for defamation over some of the claims made in the interview. There is also an open investigation with the Hawks relating to a complaint filed by the leader of Build One SA, Mmusi Maimane, accusing De Ruyter of failing to lodge a section 34 reporting terms of Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act. Section 34 places a duty on certain people to report certain offences.
However, in his statement to Scopa, De Ruyter said he took several steps to report the alleged corruption to law enforcement authorities “and government officials on the highest level”. De Ruyter referred specifically to a meeting held on June 4 at Megawatt Park in Johannesburg with senior police officials, including Masemola, at which he requested the assistance of SAPS and the State Security Agency.
After this meeting, De Ruyter said, a police brigadier was designated by Masemola to be the liaison with the intelligence operation. “This officer has had full access to all of the intelligence gathered and has stated to me that he has kept his line command informed,” De Ruyter said.
On Tuesday SAPS confirmed that it had meetings with De Ruyter on June 4 and July 5. However, according to the chair of the police’s energy safety and security priority committee, Lt-Gen Peter Jacobs, no specific information containing elements that would enable the SAPS to open criminal investigations were conveyed during these meetings.
Masemola said after the June meeting he told De Ruyter “let me give you somebody that can listen to you”. De Ruyter “said
he had further information that he could share but he could only [do so] with those that are investigating.”
“Brigadier Burger was designated to speak to [De Ruyter]. Burger came back and said the information that he got [from De Ruyter] is already with the Hawks,” said Masemola.
Masemola also told Scopa that he did not have the details of everything Burger shared with Hawks. But, he said, the brigadier did say he was briefed on information obtained from a private investigator.
“I became aware of a private investigation around July last year […] when Burger told me that he consulted a private investigator.”
“Burger said he escalated information he got from the private investigator to the Hawks and the Investigating Directorate, but I never got that information myself. As long as he took it to the relevant authorities I was happy that it would get the necessary attention,” Masemola said.
“We received a report in terms of section 34 of [the act], submitted on April 25 by a firm of attorneys on behalf of Mr
De Ruyter. It was received a day before Mr De Ruyter appeared before Scopa,” said Godfrey Lebeya, head of the Hawks. This report was the same one that was submitted to Scopa.
Lebeya said immediately after De Ruyter’s TV interview the Hawks, through Maj-Gen Nicholas Gerber, the provincial head in Mpumalanga, reached out to him to ascertain the information first hand, but De Ruyter declined a meeting referring Gerber to his lawyer, Willem Janse van Rensburg.
The SIU said they also only became aware of the existence of “an intelligence report” on the morning before De Ruyter was due to appear before Scopa.
“The allegations made by De Ruyter [were] never brought to the attention of the SIU. After the interview the SIU made several attempts to contact De Ruyter to which he failed to respond,” SIU head Andy Mothibi.
After they became aware of the report the SIU immediately requested a copy from Eskom officials, but were advised on May 5 that Eskom was not in possession of the report.
Scopa will be briefed by the Eskom board on Wednesday.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.