Publications
Partners
In an unprecedented move, the state capture commission’s legal team on Wednesday deemed it more cost-effective and efficient to utilise reports compiled by other investigators relating to the alleged capture of state entity Eskom.
Instead of the usual calling of witnesses and having them present their version of events, the commission’s legal team led by advocate Vincent Maleka opted to utilise witness testimony and investigation already submitted before other reputable bodies as part of the team’s submission before the commission on the alleged state capture at Eskom.
The legal team placed on record reports compiled by the National Energy Regulator of South Africa (Nersa), multinational law firm Dentons, a Public Protector report as well as recommendations made by the portfolio committee on public enterprises.
“Chair [deputy chief justice Raymond Zondo], we have decided to draw your attention to a number of investigations that have already been done relating to allegations of state capture directly relating to Eskom, said Maleka.
He justified the move as being necessitated by the fact that the commission had only so much money to conduct its investigations, hence the need to not “rerun similar investigations that had already been done by other reputable organisations”.
Maleka explained that witnesses had already supplied affidavits and given testimony to numerous organisations and it would be redundant to have them repeat the same process before the Zondo commission.
He also added that in presenting their version of events through utilising reports that had been complied by other inquiries it would be “cost-effective and efficient” for the commission.
“Should there be a need, we as the commission’s legal team will fill in the gaps where serious need be. If it means recalling witness we will be the first to do so,” said Maleka.
He reminded Zondo that the portfolio committee on state-owned enterprises had conducted “investigations relating to state capture of different entities and it too had decided to prioritise Eskom”.
He said regardless of the fact that the legal team was aware that Transnet, and not Eskom, was the first entity to allegedly be captured, they had deemed Eskom a priority because of its “centrality in the economy and also its sheer scale when it comes to the company’s operational budget”.
Maleka chose to start with the Nersa report because the energy regulator’s report looked into the 2008 loadshedding which had since been repeated in 2015 and again this year.
He said the report had made recommendations, which the power utility’s executive had clearly chosen to not abide by, hence the repeat of the phenomena of loadshedding.
The commission’s legal team also added that this particular report captured concerns raised by non-governmental organisations about Eskom to the portfolio committee on public enterprises.
“These apprehensions are important because they reflect the concerns of civil society on a public-owned entity of vital importance to the country,” said Maleka.
He also submitted before the commission a report by global law firm Dentons that came almost seven years after the Nersa report.
“Chair, the Dentons report was authorised by the board but the investigation was not completed and the investigators from Dentons told Eskom that they had stopped at the midpoint of the investigation,” said Maleka.
He, however, explained that the presentation of this report before the commission was because it demonstrated that “the state capture project unfolded at Eskom through one primary means which was procurement”.
Similar to the Dentons report, Maleka demonstrated to the commission that the Public Protector’s report also revealed that the flouting of procurement procedures and improper awarding of tenders are what led to the capture of Eskom and the resultant loadshedding that is affecting the country.
