Supporters of the largest opposition party 'Democratic Alliance' hold banners and gather to protest against the ruling party 'African National Congress' due to the recent power cuts in Johannesburg, South Africa on January 25, 2023. (Photo by Ihsaan Haffejee/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)
The Democratic Alliance (DA) on Tuesday moved a motion calling on the National Assembly to establish an ad hoc committee to investigate corruption in Eskom and the alleged existence of politically-connected cartels looting the utility, as alluded to by former chief executive Andre de Ruyter.
In the motion, DA leader John Steenhuisen asks that the assembly note that De Ruyter alleged the government was not only aware of entrenched corruption at Eskom “but that it actively contributed to the collapse of the utility by allegedly participating in and turning a blind eye to the extensive looting”.
The motion further places on record that De Ruyter alleged that “he on at least one occasion pointed out to a serving member of cabinet that a high-level politician described as a sitting member of parliament was intricately involved”.
Public Enterprises Minister Pravin Gordhan has confirmed in a television interview that he was the minister in question, but said he could not remember whether he had, as De Ruyter claimed, responded by saying that it was inevitable that the information would emerge.
The DA last week, after De Ruyter made the explosive claims in an interview with eNCA, called for him to be given an opportunity to expand on it in parliament.
It said the proposed committee should be able to exercise all powers provided for in terms of rule 167 of the rules of parliament.
This includes the power to summon any person to appear before it to give evidence under oath or submit documents.
Because De Ruyter is not a member of parliament, he would not enjoy parliamentary privilege, which extends to legal immunity against civil or criminal liability. A person who testifies before a committee of the legislature however enjoys the same level of privilege as a witness testifying in court.
Nothing said or presented by way of evidence can be held against a witness, barring a charge of perjury or giving false or misleading information.
De Ruyter declined to name the politician on air, citing the risk of libel.
The ANC has responded by giving him 10 days to produce evidence to substantiate his claims, or face legal action.
“If in a certain period he doesn’t prove those claims, what he said about the ANC, we will take legal action. As we speak now, our lawyers are looking at this thing. He must prove what he said,” said the ANC’s secretary general, Fikile Mbalula.
In the interview, De Ruyter said available evidence showed that the ANC saw Eskom as an “eating trough”.
It is understood that the thinking behind the DA motion is that it would be difficult for the ANC to vote against a parliamentary inquiry designed to get to the bottom of graft at Eskom while South Africa experienced load-shedding daily.
It will be debated in mid-March, a senior DA member said.
In 2018, parliament’s portfolio committee on public enterprises conducted an inquiry into corruption at Eskom. It heard extensive testimony on state capture at the utility, including how senior managers had furthered the interests of the Gupta family’s Tegeta Resources, and foreshadowed the work of the Zondo commission in this regard.
De Ruyter was last week asked to leave the utility with immediate effect, a month before the end of his three-month notice period.
[/membership]