In parliament: former Eskom chairperson Malegapuru Makgoba.
Makgoba said Public Enterprises Minister Pravin Gordhan was told about graft at Eskom and he had urged former chief executive André de Ruyter to gather information on it.
(Masi Losi/Sunday Times/Gallo Images)
The party’s and state’s response to André de Ruyter’s allegations that ANC politicians were complicit in corruption at Eskom has been to deny, discredit and sue for defamation, but it started unravelling under parliamentary scrutiny this week.
On Wednesday, former Eskom chairperson Malegapuru Makgoba told MPs it was simply not true that De Ruyter never briefed the board, the police and government on troubling crime intelligence linking a top politician to corruption at the company before going public with this in a television interview in February.
Makgoba said not only was Public Enterprises Minister Pravin Gordhan informed, it was he who had urged De Ruyter to initiate some form of intelligence gathering after the police failed to stem theft and sabotage at the utility.
“I was informed and I think the minister of public enterprises was actually the one who brought up this matter, because of the way Eskom was besieged, and he said to André: ‘You know you have to gather some intelligence somehow,’” Makgoba told the standing committee on public accounts (Scopa).
“He didn’t say it must be done in the manner André did, but he said we needed to gather some intelligence to be on top of this problem because load-shedding was increasing, criminal activities were increasing and so forth and so forth.
“That much I am aware of and I can confirm that.”
None of this would have been necessary, he said, had the security cluster not been asleep while criminals ransacked the company and the load-shedding crisis escalated.
Gordhan did not answer calls or messages from the Mail & Guardian but denied through his spokesperson, Ellis Myandu, that he had a hand in enlisting the services of private investigators.
“Minister Gordhan had nothing at all to do with the decision of the ex-CEO to raise money from the private sector or retaining the services of any company.”
But a well-placed source said Gordhan had encouraged De Ruyter to “build an intelligence capability”.
De Ruyter enlisted the private investigating firm run by former national police commissioner George Fivaz.
When reports started flowing in, De Ruyter briefed Gordhan and the minister then spoke directly to Fivaz, the same source said, adding “the intelligence pointing in the direction of a senior politician [implicated in Eskom graft] was shared with him”.
This runs counter to the ANC’s insistence that De Ruyter kept whatever information he had to himself until the February interview with eNCA in which he said he would, on the evidence, agree with a suggestion that Eskom was “a feeding trough” for the ruling party.
Gordhan subsequently conceded that he was the minister to whom De Ruyter had mentioned suspicions regarding “a senior ANC politician”.
But he said he could not remember whether it was true, as De Ruyter had told it, that he had then turned to a colleague and said it was inevitable that this would emerge.
For his part, De Ruyter refused to name the minister when he appeared before Scopa, on a video link, a fortnight ago.
“I don’t think it will be appropriate for me to divulge the name of that minister, as it [shouldn’t] be construed as that person condoning it,” he said.
Nor would he identify the politician who was allegedly involved in directing criminal cartels at the power utility, demurring for legal reasons, as he did in the interview.
Public Enterprises Minister Pravin Gordhan. (Gulshan Khan/AFP)
That same morning, the ruling ANC filed papers to the Pretoria high court in a defamation suit designed to vindicate its reputation.
An ANC member, who was party to the discussions where the decision to sue was taken, said it was imperative because De Ruyter had made an unsubstantiated allegation without affording law enforcement the opportunity to test the claim.
“He should have come with the evidence so this could be investigated.”
On Tuesday, the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (the Hawks) and the Special Investigating Unit made the same point, in unison, in a briefing to Scopa.
Hawks head General Godfrey Lebeya said De Ruyter had not informed them about alleged corruption cartels headed by at least one senior ANC politician, who supposedly wanted to interfere with the $8.5 billion promised by Western countries for South Africa’s just energy transition — another allegation the former chief executive has made.
A source told the M&G that, during a June meeting with national police commissioner Fannie Masemola, the former Eskom chief executive “didn’t deem it necessary” to inform the police of the alleged involvement of senior ANC politicians in corruption at the power utility.
The source, who asked to remain anonymous, said an officer “designated” by Masemola to work with De Ruyter “had full access” to the intelligence reports which were compiled by Fivaz’s firm”.
“[De Ruyter] did not go through the details of each of the intelligence reports with the police, as these were extensive and voluminous.”
He did, however, facilitate access through Fivaz. The police would therefore have had the same information that De Ruyter had and he did not deem it necessary to repeat this at the meeting that month.
But Lebeya said De Ruyter was suspected of breaching his legal obligation in terms of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act to report knowledge, or reasonable suspicion, of a crime involving more than R100 000.
He said an affidavit De Ruyter filed on criminal activity last month, a day before appearing before Scopa, would “go on the table of the NPA” for the National Prosecuting Authority to determine whether he had committed a crime.
In an interview with the M&G this week, De Ruyter said the affidavit was a formality after he had, over months, repeatedly reported crime intelligence on corruption to “law enforcement authorities and government officials on the highest level”.
In July, he also reported the findings of the private investigation to Gordhan and presidential security adviser Sydney Mufamadi. Makgoba, in his submission to Scopa, fully agreed with this version.
De Ruyter said Lebeya’s insistence that he was under criminal investigation was ironic.
“It is interesting how the whistleblower becomes the accused.”
It is perhaps worth remembering that before De Ruyter resigned on 12 December, he was heavily criticised by Mineral Resources and Energy Minister Gwede Mantashe for focusing on fighting crime rather than showing technical prowess.
“He is like a policeman,” Mantashe said dismissively in November.
On Wednesday, Eskom chairperson Mpho Makwana and top managers at the company continued the narrative of his failure to relay crucial crime intelligence where Lebeya had left off.
Makwana flatly denied De Ruyter had shared the intelligence files with the new board in November.
“No, that is not correct,” he said, when Scopa chairperson Mkhuleko Hlengwa reminded him of the former chief executive’s insistence on this point.
Makwana said that, after the TV interview, the board decided to let De Ruyter go a month before the end of his notice period for bringing the company into disrepute.
Moreover, the board believed his allegations were misleading because he had created the impression that the information was new and that the company had failed to act on it.
He also cast doubt on De Ruyter’s calculation that corruption cost Eskom about R1 billion a month. After listening to Makwana and senior managers’ update on efforts to restore the reputational and operational integrity of the company, Makgoba said their presentation did not conflict with De Ruyter’s version.
“What I have heard from the presentation of the board of Eskom today does not contradict what De Ruyter has said because, in his own presentation, he alluded to all of these issues and he did make a statement to the effect that progress has been made, so he didn’t articulate in detail as to what we have heard around oil fuel, about free tax, but he did indicate that progress had been made,” he said.
“And these were issues I think that concerned De Ruyter during his term.”
Makgoba said private investigators were enlisted because law enforcement authorities had failed dismally.
“The issue that De Ruyter undertook was an operational matter because Eskom at the time was besieged with sabotage and corruption and we were not getting mileage from the law enforcement agencies.”
He said it was strange that the intelligence operation was now dismissed as an unauthorised frolic on De Ruyter’s part when President Cyril Ramaphosa, in his State of the Nation address in February, said it had yielded results, including 43 arrests.
“Which intelligence-driven operation was this that led to 43 people being arrested?” he asked rhetorically.
“When you listen to what the security director at Eskom talks about arrests, and what changes have happened, it seems like the SAPS and the Hawks have only woken up after they’ve had this intelligence-related information.”
After the meeting, Scopa member Alf Lees commented that the Eskom presentation was obfuscation of the highest order and that the legal and political battle unfolding around De Ruyter would do nothing to resolve the dire energy crisis.
The tug-of-war over renewable energy, which De Ruyter championed to his critics’ chagrin, continues.
Last week, Mantashe persevered in his insistence that there were cheaper options.
In contrast, Electricity Minister Kgosientsho Ramokgopa, to whom Ramaphosa wants to shift the energy portfolio, opened a new bid window and expressed the hope that it could bring 15 000 megawatts online.