The Eskom board is working on appointing an independent legal panel to review the work done by its internal state capture and corruption task team.
This is in response to wide-ranging allegations made by the former CEO André de Ruyter about corruption at Eskom.
The chair of the board, Mpho Makwana, told parliament’s standing committee on public accounts (Scopa) on Wednesday that during a television interview broadcast on eNCA on February 21 and his subsequent presentation to Scopa in April De Ruyter “cited old matters as if they were new matters”.
Makwana referred to De Ruyter’s assertions about, among other things, the theft of fuel oil from Tutuka power station and the involvement of organised crime, including cartels, in sabotage and corruption at Eskom.
The matter of Tutuka, he said, was already placed before Scopa in November 2022, and the matter of cartels “predates this board’s time” and was already part of investigations being pursued by the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) and the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (Hawks).
He was responding to questions from members of Scopa about what the board has done in response to the claims made by De Ruyter in the television interview and his submission to the committee.
Though they thought there was nothing new in the examples raised by De Ruyter, the board decided to have an independent investigation done “so that dots can be connected to make sure nothing has been missed”.
“Following the assertions made by De Ruyter, we asked [the internal state capture task team] to look further into whether there were any other matters that the board may not be aware.
“The board also resolved that, in keeping with its fiduciary duty and responsibilities, that an independent legal panel must be appointed ... to revisit everything that has been done to date by both the internal task team and any other investigations that Eskom would have done internally,” he said.
A process was under way to appoint this independent panel, which would report to the audit and risk committee of the board.
“[This panel will conduct a] full and comprehensive independent investigation so that we can connect the dots and ensure there is nothing left unhandled in line with our quest to eradicate corruption and any forms of wrongdoing inside Eskom,” Makwana said.
Later, in response to more questions from MPs, Makwana said this “legal review panel” would be drawn from lawyers that were already preapproved in the Eskom procurement system.
“It shouldn’t be something that becomes exorbitant. These are lawyers who are already doing different work for Eskom. So we would cherry pick two or three that would work on this matter. I don’t foresee that this will be something that will break the bank,” he said.
Makwana also disputed previous claims by De Ruyter that he had informed the new Eskom board (that was appointed in October) about a private intelligence operation that had been initiated by De Ruyter.
“The new board had no knowledge of this intelligence report. We learnt about it from the media. We don’t have anything in writing that gives details of what is contained in these reports, other than what we have read about in the media,” he said.
During the same meeting on Wednesday, former Eskom interim chair Malegapuru Makgoba said De Ruyter’s decision to launch a privately funded investigation into corruption and sabotage at the state-owned power utility occurred when Eskom was “besieged by corruption and not getting any mileage from law enforcement”.
Makgoba confirmed to Scopa that De Ruyter did, as he stated in his submission to the committee, inform the interim chair about the private intelligence investigation that was conducted, on instruction from De Ruyter, by George Fivaz Forensic & Risk, a company owned by former police commissioner Fivaz.
On July 5, De Ruyter also informed public enterprises minister Pravin Gordhan and presidential security adviser Sydney Mufamadi about the private investigation, Makgoba said.
Makgoba told Scopa he had been informed and that Gordhan was the person who suggested to De Ruyter that Eskom should gather “some intelligence to get on top of this problem, because Eskom was besieged [by corruption]”.
In addition, Makgoba said he could recall at least one meeting at which De Ruyter informed former National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) Investigating Directorate head Hermione Cronje about concerns that matters reported to law enforcement by Eskom were not getting the necessary attention.
The SA Police Service (SAPS) and the Hawks were investigating cases referred to them by Eskom, but they were not showing any urgency in doing so and they were being “almost lackadaisical about what needed to be done while Rome was burning”.
“This was repeating itself a number of times with cases that had been reported to the Hawks or to the SAPS [with both law enforcement bodies] showing very little action. If the SAPS and the Hawks had done their work effectively and efficiently, we would not need to be meeting here today,” Makgoba said.
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.