Get more Mail & Guardian
Subscribe or Login

Why Brian Molefe’s return to Eskom can’t be justified

The return of Brian Molefe as chief executive of South Africa’s largest state owned enterprise, the power utility Eskom, has caused outrage due to the circumstances under which he resigned in December last year.

Molefe left the power utility after a Public Protector’s inquiry alleged that he may have been involved in nefarious activities. The State of Capture report by the then Public Protector, Thuli Madonsela, showed extensive and irregular communication between Molefe and the Guptas, a family with close ties to President Jacob Zuma.

At the time Molefe’s backers – including board chairperson Ben Ngubane – glorified him. They attributed a turnaround in Eskom’s fortunes as a function of the chief executive’s 18-month tenure. His supporters branded him as a messiah whose departure would have negative consequences for the power utility.

Similar sentiments were expressed more recently by Ngubane and Public Enterprises Minister Lynne Brown. She told a press conference that she supported his return as chief executive as he was responsible for the fact that load shedding (organised power cuts) had stopped and the power utility was on sound financial footing.

But was Molefe’s performance as great as his supporters say it was? I suggest not.

It’s true that under Molefe’s reign power cuts across the country were brought to an end. In addition, Eskom reported better financial results last year.

But neither of these two developments had much to do with Molefe’s capabilities as a chief executive. The power cuts ended primarily due to a decline in electricity demand – partly the consequence of a weakening economy – and new generation capacity that had been in the pipeline for years. And the improvement in a number of Eskom’s financial ratios was due in large part to massive financial support provided by the government in 2015.

Did Molefe end the power cuts?

Prior to Molefe’s arrival as chief executive in March 2015 the power utility’s finances had been worsening and it was struggling to meet electricity demand. These challenges were largely due to a delay in investment by the government as well as slow increases in tariffs.

The delay in investment was due to government’s indecisiveness over a protracted period of time. And the slow increase in tariffs was the result of a desire to shield consumers from sharp increases and a mistrust of Eskom’s claimed needs.

South Africans lived through a period of extensive power cuts in 2007. Electricity generation capacity was unable to keep up with demand. The situation was largely saved by slowing economic growth combined with greater energy efficiency. These factors meant that electricity demand was already well below forecasts prior to Molefe’s appointment and continued this trajectory during his tenure as CEO.

Falling demand created a virtuous cycle in operations: lower demand put an end to the need to impose power cuts. It also opened up the opportunity to do maintenance on infrastructure, leading to greater availability of capacity and an even lower probability of power cuts.

To be sure, Molefe still had to ensure that Eskom continued to get the basics right. There’s little evidence that he did more than that. Instead, it seems that his predecessor, Tshediso Matona, was excessively negative in his outlook. This set up Molefe to appear as though he had pulled-off a dramatic success.

Molefe’s bailouts

What of the improvements in Eskom’s financial situation?

The view that Molefe was behind Eskom’s short-term financial turnaround was used to award him a R2.5 million performance bonus for the year ended 31 March 2016. (Molefe appears to have secured a R30 million retirement package when he tendered his resignation. Under the terms of his return to the job this will now no longer be paid.)

But a closer look suggests that Eskom’s financial improvement can’t be attributed to Molefe. In many respects it was the result of extraordinary support afforded to the power utility by the government in 2015.

This support, facilitated by two special appropriation bills passed by Parliament, had two main components. The first was an equity injection through which the National Treasury under which Eskom received R23 billion in exchange for shares. Since government is the sole Eskom shareholder, this translated into a straight cash gift.

The second component was even more significant. This involved government writing-off a R60 billion loan which had been approved in 2008 and disbursed in multiple tranches between 2008 and 2010.

If we treat Eskom as a genuinely independent entity, the full cost to national government and therefore the taxpayer of writing off the loan had two parts:

  • the remaining principal amount (around R30 billion), and

  • an additional R86 billion, the estimated cost of the state foregoing interest payments on the loan. According to the loan conditions, Eskom would have been required to pay this interest in the event that its financial situation improved.

Whether this financial support was desirable depends on your view of Eskom’s recent history. Many analysts agree that additional government support was overdue. But in relation to Molefe it raises a simpler question: if many of the improvements in Eskom’s financial ratios were due to massive transfers of cash and assets from taxpayers, did it make sense to pay its CEO a bonus that effectively also came from taxpayers?

Either way, closer analysis of Molefe’s supposed successes reveal that they are not what they have been made out to be. Combined with the failures of corporate governance with which he has been associated, the case for reappointing him as Eskom CEO appears to be paper thin.

Seán Mfundza Muller, Senior Lecturer in Economics, University of Johannesburg

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The Conversation

Subscribe to the M&G

Thanks for enjoying the Mail & Guardian, we’re proud of our 36 year history, throughout which we have delivered to readers the most important, unbiased stories in South Africa. Good journalism costs, though, and right from our very first edition we’ve relied on reader subscriptions to protect our independence.

Digital subscribers get access to all of our award-winning journalism, including premium features, as well as exclusive events, newsletters, webinars and the cryptic crossword. Click here to find out how to join them and receive a 40% discount on our annual rate..

Seán Mfundza Muller
Seán Mfundza Muller is a lecturer in economics at the University of Johannesburg, with an interest in issues pertaining to institutional integrity and social justice.

Related stories

Advertising

Subscribers only

Q&A Sessions: Zanele Mbuyisa — For the love of people-centred...

She’s worked on one of the biggest class-action cases in South Africa and she’s taken on Uber: Zanele Mbuyisa speaks to Athandiwe Saba about advocating for the underrepresented, getting ‘old’ and transformation in the law fraternity

Update: Standard Bank rejects climate proposal

Climate considerations are pressing Standard Bank shareholders to push for the recusal of those with fossil fuel ties.

More top stories

Denel money woes clip air force’s wings

A senior officer says the shortage of spares and and ability to service aircraft and vehicles has a negative effect on the SANDF’s operational ability

State fails at-risk children as R55m orphanage stands empty

Boikagong Centre in Mahikeng has been closed for almost two years because it did not meet safety requirements. The discarded children say they want a safe place to learn, but instead endure rape and other violence

Wildlife farming vs Creecy’s panel

The departments of environment and agriculture legislation are at odds over modifying the genes of wild animals

Drugs and alcohol abuse rage in crime stats

Substance abuse has emerged as a reason for the spike in crimes during the first quarter of 2021.
Advertising

press releases

Loading latest Press Releases…
×