It is no secret that Merafong owes Eskom hundreds of millions of rands. As we all know, Merafong comprises Carletonville, Khutsong, Fochville, Kokosi, Greenspark, Wedela and the mining “villages”. And yet, when Eskom decided to implement load reduction as a punitive measure, only Fochville, Kokosi and Greenspark were affected. Why is that?
Could it be that when residents pay, whether they live in Carletonville or Fochville, the money goes into the Merafong account? We understand there are two bulk accounts for Eskom – one for Carletonville and one for Fochville. Could it be that Merafong officials then add the money for Fochville to that of Carletonville so that when they pay the two bulk accounts, it appears that Carletonville has a better payment rate than Fochville (although we know Fochville has the highest payment rate in all the Merafong areas)?
If not, why does Eskom only act against Fochville? What is the reason then?
We suspect officials from Merafong may be doing this because the primary political support base is in Carletonville (particularly in Khutsong). Is this why Fochville residents, despite diligently paying their accounts, are just thrown under the bus – for political support elsewhere? Or is there another reason, and if so, what?
Let us also consider the payment rates in all the townships. We all know it is miniscule. We also know Merafong does not enforce its credit control measures in any area except Carletonville and Fochville. Why is that?
The fact that Merafong is drowning in debt, that their technical teams do not have the equipment or spares they need, that they can hardly pay the due overtime, and there is generally a cash flow problem, is seemingly not enough reason to get everyone to pay their dues. Why is it then expected that only some should pay? On what basis is this separation made? Is it for the same reason that no action is taken against the thousands of illegal connections and bridged meters? Is it all simply about politics?
(The Herald sent this letter to the municipality for their feedback but they did not make use of the opportunity to reply. – Editor)