Eskom given a black eye

FULL DISCLOSURE: COURT TELLS UTILITY TO GIVE AFRIFORUM CONTRACT INFO REQUESTED

No transparency about what it is paying or charging.

The High Court in Pretoria rejected arguments by Eskom that some of its crucial contracts are commercially sensitive and should remain under wraps. It ordered the utility to disclose the following within 10 days:

Copies of all active contracts that Eskom or any of its subsidiaries has concluded for the purchase, transportation and distribution of coal;

Copies of all active contracts Eskom or any of its subsidiaries has concluded for the purchase, transportation and distribution of diesel; and

Copies (unredacted) of all active contracts Eskom or one of its subsidiaries entered into with neighbouring countries to provide them with electricity.

AfriForum had approached the court to review and set aside a decision by Eskom’s deputy information officer Moleka Tshabalala to substantially refuse its request for the information in terms of the Promotion of Access to Information Act in September 2022.

AfriForum tried to follow the internal appeals process, but Eskom never finalised the appeal.

The utility did provide copies of the contracts with neighbouring countries, but they were redacted to the extent that the prices paid and the identity of the persons representing the parties were completely obscured.

In the financial year ended 31 March last year, Eskom spent almost R155 billion on primary energy, largely composed of coal and diesel costs. That was an increase of 17% compared to the previous financial year.

Coal contracts came under the spotlight in the Commission of Inquiry into State Capture, chaired Chief Justice Raymond Zondo, and there has been little transparency about the price Eskom is paying state-owned PetroSA, its biggest supplier.

AfriForum argued in court that the average price of diesel is widely known and the public has a right to know how Eskom’s diesel purchases compare.

Regarding the power supply contracts with neighbouring countries, AfriForum argued the tariffs Eskom charges for electricity increase substantially yearly. South Africans must know what Eskom charges these countries and how it compares with domestic tariffs.

The court found Eskom did not give proper reasons for refusing AfriForum’s request. It merely cited the articles of the Act that it based its refusal on without exby plaining why they were applicable.

It did not properly substantiate its reliance on the commercial sensitivity of the information and its assertion that it would harm the third parties it contracted with.

This argument was also contradicted by Eskom’s statement that the disclosure would weaken its own negotiating position with such parties.