Read more
De Ruyter ‘at pains to avoid’ naming politicians who knew about Eskom corruption
The former Eskom CEO said security and legal risks prevented him from naming politicians who were aware of the corruption.
Former Eskom CEO André de Ruyter speaks during an interview in Johannesburg on 15 November 2021. Picture: Gallo Images/Rapport/Deon Raath
Former Eskom CEO André de Ruyter has refused to name the high-level politicians who were aware of corruption at the embattled power utility.
De Ruyter was grilled by Parliament’s Standing Committee on Public Accounts (Scopa) on Wednesday relating to the allegations he made during an interview with eNCA, where he revealed that he had informed a Cabinet minister about Eskom corruption involving a senior politician.
He said evidence would suggested that the ANC saw Eskom as a “feeding trough”.
ALSO READ: WATCH: Did De Ruyter fund ‘private investigation’ into corruption at Eskom?
“I expressed my concern to a senior government minister about attempts – in my view – to water down governance around the $8.5 billion that, by and large through Eskom intervention, we got at COP26.
“The response was essentially, ‘you know, you have to be pragmatic – in order to pursue the greater good, you have to enable some people to eat a little bit’. So yes, I think it is entrenched,” the former Eskom CEO said at the time.
“When we pointed out that there was one particular high-level politician that was involved in this, the minister in question looked at the senior official and said, ‘I guess it was inevitable that this would come out anyway’. Which suggests that this wasn’t news [to them].”
‘Any condonation’
During Wednesday’s proceedings, De Ruyter sought to provide clarity as to the context of the “eat a little bit” statement and told Scopa that the minister’s response should not be seen as expressing a condonation of “feeding” on the funding.
“This was not a response that related to general corruption and fraud at Eskom, this was a response to a concern that I expressed to the minister and also to other individuals about the governance about the 18.5 billion US dollar funding that South Africa obtained at COP26 and that would in very part be applying to the benefit of Eskom.
“Obviously when such a large amount of money is made available to an entity with a history of a chequered past when it comes to governance and how funds are managed, concerns arise that this money should be tightly controlled.
ALSO READ: Ramaphosa says it’s not his job to find out which ministers are allegedly involved in Eskom graft
“I must just press that at no time was the discussion about broader elements of poor governance or any condonation by the minister concerned of that nature so I would not want the statement to be characterised by the minister that there was a broad allowance made for people to eat or participate in funding. I don’t think that it can be construed as a general approval or support of the corruption and theft that is still ongoing at Eskom,” he said.
De Ruyter, however, did not want to divulge the identity of the minister, saying that it would not be appropriate.
Watching the proceedings below:
ANC MP Bheki Hadebe pressed De Ruyter to expose the minister.
“I take it that the minister and the official are still continuing as business as usual and are still executing the rule and responsibility entrusted upon them, and who knows they are still allowing or enabling an environment where corruption must prevail,” Hadebe said.
In his response, De Ruyter insisted that he disclosed the findings and issues that he uncovered with Public Enterprises Minister Pravin Gordhan as well as national security advisor Sydney Mufamadi.
“What they did with that information I am not aware, although subsequently there has been progress made,” he said.
RELATED: De Ruyter told Gordhan about corruption as two ministers ‘implicated’ in Eskom probe
“I don’t think it is in the interests of the oversight role of Scopa and the nature of the engagement that I disclose this today. I don’t think that is a critical element, it is not important and I, therefore, propose that we move on.”
Scopa chair Mkhuleko Hlengwa, however, said it was relevant that De Ruyter reveal the identity of the minister because there have been instances of politicians interfering in the affairs of state-owned enterprises (SOEs).
“I think insofar as having a frank discussion, the question that honourable Hadebe is posing is a fair and correct one,” Hlengwa said.
‘Risk of legal action’
As was the case with the identity of the senior politician involved, the former Eskom boss insisted that naming the person would fall within potential “security risks” as this may comprises ongoing law enforcement investigations.
He said he complied with the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act (Precca) by reporting his concerns to Gordhan or Mufamadi and asked Scopa to engage with them instead.
READ MORE: Gordhan isn’t aware of crime cartels, but says there’s corrupt elements in and outside Eskom
“There is a narrative in the media that there is a minister that I mentioned… I must just avoid any doubt in this regard. I never made any statement to the fact that it is a minister. I said it was a senior politician,” De Ruyter explained.
“[Naming the individual] could potentially put me at risk of any legal action whether it be civil or criminal, because there is already a highly litigious environment that has arisen around Eskom and my tenure as chief executive. I would be loath to expose myself to any further legal action.”
Parliamentary privilege
Hadebe offered De Ruyter the opportunity to take an oath and be protected by parliamentary privilege so he could name the politician, but the former Eskom boss seemingly turned down the opportunity.
“I think under the circumstance, given the fact that this is an inquisitorial or parliament investigation, there’s no opportunity for me to be subjected to cross-examination or to have legal representation to clarify and elucidate any answers that I might have.
“So even if I were to enjoy the protection by parliamentary privilege, the concerns I have in terms of security would still apply and I, therefore, again recommend that the committee should address their concerns with the two individuals,” De Ruyter said.
Asked what his definition of a senior politician is – whether it is in government, or a political party, De Ruyter told Hlengwa: “A senior politician is what it is. Without casting aspersions, you are a senior politician.”
“With respect, I will not go down that path because one question will lead to another, and then by process of elimination, I would be forced to make a disclosure, which I am at pains to avoid.”
NOW READ: Prove that De Ruyter is a liar instead of asking him for names publicly
