The Special Investigating Unit (SIU) says the private intelligence investigation into crime and corruption at Eskom, done at the behest of former CEO André de Ruyter, was not authorised by the board and amounted to “maladministration” on De Ruyter’s part.
Nevertheless, SIU head Andy Mothibi told parliament that the contents of the intelligence reports “cannot be ignored”.
During a sitting on Tuesday of the standing committee on public accounts (Scopa), Mothibi said it is necessary to distinguish between the “unauthorised nature of the investigation and the usefulness of the contents of the investigation report”.
In a series of engagements that started with a sitting with De Ruyter in April, the committee has been looking into wide-ranging allegations made by the former CEO about corruption at Eskom during an interview on eNCA on February 21, and later in a book Truth to Power he published about the time he had spent at Eskom.
The committee has also met with law enforcement agencies, members of the current and previous board of Eskom and public enterprises minister Pravin Gordhan.
The allegations made by De Ruyter, including the involvement of criminal cartels — which he said had links to high-ranking ANC members and state officials — in crime and corruption activities at Eskom, were based on a privately funded probe done by former police commissioner George Fivaz’s company, Forensic & Risk (GFFR).
Since the De Ruyter interview in February, and his subsequent departure from Eskom, the intelligence investigation has drawn criticism from various government quarters, including the State Security Agency and parliament, over its use of unvetted operatives who were allegedly given unrestricted access to sensitive information without following the correct protocols.
On Tuesday, Mothibi told Scopa that as the reports from GFFR implied, “there was a clear, organised nature of crime and corruption being committed at Eskom”, and “endemic collusion between Eskom officials and private companies” to defraud the state-owned power company.
The SIU, he said, was already investigating many of the matters that featured in the GFFR reports before the intelligence investigation was commissioned by De Ruyter, but the reports did contain information “that could be useful”.
“The [intelligence reports] cannot be ignored, it has information that can point to areas that require investigation,” Mothibi said.
National head of the Hawks, Lt-Gen Godfrey Lebeya, told Scopa that although the intelligence reports provided no evidence, they are working on corroborating some of the allegations stemming from the reports. This includes the investigation of 10 “groupings” in Mpumalanga believed to be involved in crime at Eskom.
The matters currently under investigation by the SIU linked to information contained in the intelligence reports relate to several contracts awarded to companies that appear to feature “common actors” at power stations such as Kusile, Medupi, Tutuka, Duvha and Grootvlei.
While the usefulness of the intelligence is clear, the SIU will still consider taking legal action against De Ruyter for commissioning an “unauthorised” investigation, he said.
The SIU can confirm that the investigation was not approved by the previous or current Eskom board, he said.
“It is an important governance issue and points to a measure of maladministration — as far as investigations were done by this private company into the affairs of Eskom, it was unauthorised.”
Mothibi said De Ruyter’s action might have been well intended, but in the SIU’s view, the manner in which he went about things was not consistent with his office, and his failure to inform the Eskom board, the SIU, Directorate of Priority Crime Investigation (the Hawks), and the SA Police Service| (SAPS) “amounted to maladministration”.
“Consideration should be given to holding [De Ruyter] to account. We will consider the options available with the Eskom board. [We have heard De Ruyter] has since been employed at a university in the US, but should the nature of the action required warrant it, we will have to formally reach out to wherever he is so that action can be taken,” Mothibi said.
De Ruyter recently joined Yale’s Jackson School of Global Affairs in the US as a senior fellow for the 2023-24 academic year.
Mothibi said they are also looking into the conduct of Business Leadership SA, one of the private funders of the Fivaz investigation. Business Leadership SA provided R18m in funding to GFFR to support the intelligence probe.
Though it was facilitated by De Ruyter, the contract between Business Leadership SA and Fivaz shows Business Leadership SA appointed the company to run the investigation up until June 30 2022, Mothibi said. "[They] should know an investigation cannot be conducted into the affairs of a state institution without the authorisation of the accounting authority.”
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.