It’s a free-for-all against De Ruyter
Will Eskom CEO André de Ruyter survive the racially charged offensive to force him out?
It is important for SA that he does. There are not a great many people in the country who could do the job, and even fewer who would be prepared to do it.
Not only is there a large pay cut involved for a senior executive of this stature and experience, but leading Eskom is probably the hardest and least rewarding job in SA.
Aside from personal considerations — De Ruyter must be wondering whether the pain is worth it — the key to his survival is whether he has the support of the board. From what I understand he does. It was this board that recruited him after an executive search, and that gave him the mandate to deliver a high-performing organisation.
Why then did the board take the decision that the man they trust should be investigated for claims of racism? The decision is even more puzzling when the facts of the matter are laid out.
The racism claim is an accusation made by Eskom’s chief procurement officer, Solly Tshitangano. A career public servant with a good reputation, Tshitangano was facing a disciplinary process on grounds of poor performance when the allegation blew up after leaks to Sunday newspapers and a letter to parliament’s standing committee on public accounts.
COMPLAINTS
The grounds for the disciplinary hearing included Tshitangano’s extension of fuel contracts to Econ Oil, a company he knew was implicated in overcharging and corruption; his use of “free text pricing” on the SAP system, which meant items from black refuse bags to hydraulic pumps were hugely overcharged; his failure to attend meetings of the executive committee; and the absence of adequate explanation for poor quality documents submitted.
It is now common knowledge that on two occasions Tshitangano wrote to interim board chair Malegapuru Makgoba with a ream of complaints against De Ruyter, including that appointments he made were unprocedural and motivated by racist intentions.
The second letter was also sent to President Cyril Ramaphosa and public enterprises minister Pravin Gordhan. Makgoba advised Tshitangano to make use of the Eskom grievance procedure and said he did not intend to intervene in the matter.
Tshitangano’s accusations of unprocedural and racist acts by De Ruyter included the appointment of a fuel oil expert on a short-term contract, as well as his decision to reshuffle top Eskom executives, which resulted in a white male being appointed a senior manager in the procurement office.
In an affidavit prepared for parliament’s standing committee on public accounts, De Ruyter explained that the fuel oil expert was hired at the request of Tshitangano himself, who also signed the contract, and that the reshuffle of executives did not require interviews to be done. He also noted that in one instance he replaced a white male with a black female in the senior position of GM for finance.
ILL-ADVISED
From this, it is easy to see why Makgoba and the board saw no need to get involved. In fact, intervening in a dispute between De Ruyter and a member of his executive committee he is empowered to manage would be illadvised. It would be even more ill-advised if the result was to launch a broad and open inquiry into whether De Ruyter is racist.
But this is exactly what has happened. Advocate Ishmael Semenya, who will head the inquiry, has been asked to “interview any person that may be of assistance in the probe, consider any evidence and then make recommendations”, the board said.
This means any one or all of Eskom’s 46,000 employees can climb on the racial bandwagon to beat up De Ruyter. The standing committee on public accounts already did so, beginning a probe of De Ruyter itself even though this is not within the realm of its responsibility. (The ANC has since realised the foolishness of this and shut down the inquiry).
The reason the board went against its better instincts, according to some in the know, was on the basis of an appeal from the shareholder, which feared Eskom would stand accused of sweeping racism under the carpet. The department of public enterprises says this is not true and it made no such intervention.
Whatever the reason, De Ruyter sits with a problem. Even if he is resoundingly “cleared”, he will always be described by detractors as the CEO who was once probed for racism.
We had all better hope De Ruyter has nerves of steel and toughs it out. Given the extraneous, time-wasting and defamatory attacks on him, if he goes surely no-one of any competence will be prepared to step into his shoes.