Eskom corruption and related matters: engagement with National Security Advisor to the President

Public Accounts (SCOPA)

26 May 2023
Chairperson: Mr M Hlengwa (IFP)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

Video 

The Standing Committee on Public Accounts heard from the National Security Advisor (NSA), Professor Syndey Mufamadi, as part of its hearings into allegations made by the former Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Eskom, Mr Andre De Ruyter, on wrongdoing at the state-owned entity (SOE).

Prof Mufamadi confirmed Mr De Ruyter’s claims that he was part of the delegation that was briefed on the privately funded intelligence report into the alleged criminality taking place at the power utility. Members were surprised to hear that the report was not handed over to Prof Mufamadi as the issues faced by Eskom pose a risk to national security in the country.

In response, Prof Mufamadi mentioned that he did not ask for Mr De Ruyter to provide him with the report because he was only invited to the meeting by Minister Gordhan to advise him on what steps should be taken, depending on the information contained in the report. Further to that, he stressed that following the briefing, he advised Mr De Ruyter to take the information to the relevant law enforcement agencies, and that the Presidency would be willing to provide assistance if required.

Prof Mufamadi continually emphasised that as the NSA, his sole task is to advise the President on matters concerning national security. Members agreed that was indeed the case, however, they questioned why he did not then inform the President of the names of the high-level officials alleged, by Mr De Ruyter, to have been involved in the criminality at Eskom.

The Committee Chairperson proposed that Parliamentary Legal Advisors write to Mr De Ruyter requesting him to submit the intelligence report to the Committee because without it certain points will not be fully uncovered. Furthermore, he asked Members to submit a list of individuals they want brought before the Committee, as part of the hearings into Eskom.

Meeting report

The Chairperson indicated that the sitting was a continuation of the Committee’s hearings into allegations made by the former CEO of Eskom on wrongdoing at the SOE. He then handed over to Professor (Prof) Sydney Mufamadi for his opening remarks.

Opening remarks by the National Security Advisor

Prof Sydney Mufamadi (National Security Advisor) explained that he was called to appear before the Committee because of the allegations made by Mr De Ruyter, which cited him. He confirmed that he was willing to account to Members regarding the matter.

The Chairperson opened the floor for discussion.

Discussion

Mr B Hadebe (ANC) asked whether Prof Mufamadi had sight of the private intelligence report sanctioned by Mr De Ruyter and if so, what subsequent steps he took; if he was aware that the report was funded by private donors; and whether the report was classified. SCOPA had an interest in the report because it touches on issues pertaining to corruption, malfeasance, and mismanagement of public funds, which is the oversight responsibility of the Committee.

Prof Mufamadi said that if Mr De Ruyter sought for him to take the report to the President he had not expressed it. Further to that, he clarified that Mr De Ruyter had not officially handed over the report to him, instead, he presented the findings during the closed meeting.

Mr Hadebe followed up and asked whether Prof Mufamadi was provided with the intelligence report.

Prof Mufamadi confirmed that he was not provided with the report.

Mr Hadebe asked how the details of the report were shared with him by Mr De Ruyter.

Prof Mufamadi highlighted that Mr De Ruyter provided both he and Minister Pravin Gordhan a briefing on the findings of the report in his personal office. Following the presentation, he advised Mr De Ruyter to report the findings to the law enforcement agencies (LEAs) and if required, the Presidency would provide them with support.

Mr Hadebe asked if Mr De Ruyter made any further requests to Prof Mufamadi. Moreover, he asked whether Mr De Ruyter had heeded his advice.

Prof Mufamadi indicated that he spoke to the National Commissioner of the South African Police Service (SAPS) after the meeting and he found that many of the allegations made by Mr De Ruyter were being investigated. In addition, the Commissioner stated that he was in contact with Mr De Ruyter.

He underlined that no requests have been made for assistance from the Presidency.

Mr Hadebe asked whether the report formed part of the intelligence reports cited by the President during the State of the Nation Address (SONA) that have led to successful arrests being made.

Prof Mufamadi said that he was unaware of which specific report the President was citing, as he receives and relies on various reports provided by intelligence agencies.

Mr Hadebe asked if he was made aware by Mr De Ruyter if the report was funded privately and not commissioned by Eskom.

Prof Mufamadi recalled Mr De Ruyter stating that ‘we’ had commissioned the report. However, he did not follow up on who he was referring to.

Mr Hadebe asked for the date on which the meeting took place.

Prof Mufamadi indicated that the meeting occurred sometime in July of last year.

Mr Hadebe asked if Prof Mufamadi did not deem it necessary to obtain the physical report, and whether Mr De Ruyter had offered to share it with him.

Prof Mufamadi answered that he did not make a request for the report as his responsibilities only required him to advise the President on strategic matters relating to national security.

Mr Hadebe asked if there had been any updates on the subsequent steps taken by Mr De Ruyter and if he had expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of action taken by the LEAs.

Prof Mufamadi denied that there was any indication of progress or a lack of action taken by the LEAs. Nevertheless, Mr De Ruyter was not obliged to do so and rather had to provide the reports to the appropriate line function Ministers and Parliament.

Ms B van Minnen (DA) asked if Prof Mudamadi could recall who was present at the meeting where the report was discussed.

Prof Mufamadi said that himself, the Minister of Public Enterprises, and one of his advisors, were present.

Ms van Minnen asked whether detail on the report was provided.

Prof Mufamadi indicated that all those present at the meeting were given a sense of the extent of the criminality taking place at the power stations. Moreover, Mr De Ruyter alleged the involvement of certain high-ranking politicians.

Ms van Minnen asked if he was able to recall the names of the politicians alleged to be involved in the criminality taking place at Eskom.

Prof Mufamadi confirmed that he did but he was reluctant to mention the names.

Ms van Minnen asked him to confirm if Minister Gordhan was present at the meeting, and whether the names of certain high-ranking politicians were mentioned.

Prof Mufamadi confirmed that was the case.

Ms van Minnen asked if there was any reaction from the other individuals, particularly Minister Gordhan, involved in the meeting to the information outlined by Mr De Ruyter.

Prof Mufamadi said that he could not recall there being a reaction. Although, he has since been made aware that in Mr De Ruyter’s book, it was said that Minister Gordhan made certain remarks to himself (Prof Mufamadi) after hearing the allegations.

Ms van Minnen asked if he was stating that he did not recall any of the words said by the Minister in response to the names that were mentioned.

Prof Mufamadi confirmed that was what he had said.

Ms van Minnen indicated that over the past few weeks, the Committee was given the sense that the names alleged to be involved in the corruption and malfeasance at Eskom, by Mr De Ruyter, had been known to officials. As such, she asked if, at the meeting, he was left with the impression that officials at Eskom had already known of the extent of the criminality at the power utility and the names of those involved. Prof Mufamadi said that he was unsure of whether the allegations contained in the report were revelations to others or not.

Ms van Minnen asked if he expected the LEAs to follow up on the information provided by Mr De Ruyter in the report.

Prof Mufamadi confirmed that he did.

Ms van Minnen informed him that in the previous meeting with the Hawks there seemed to be no drive to investigate the allegations contained in the report.

Prof Mufamadi stated that the Hawks are part of the SAPS.

Ms van Minnen indicated that the Committee was left unimpressed by the commitment shown by the SAPS at this point of the investigations.

Prof Mufamadi proposed that the Committee share its frustrations with the Portfolio Committee on Police, who can hold the Minister and the Commissioner of the Police to account for their performance.

Ms van Minnen asked that he confirm if his advice to Mr De Ruyter was to both report the allegations to the LEAs and forward the report to the Presidency.

Prof Mufamadi confirmed that was the case.

Ms van Minnen asked if he was aware of what subsequent steps Mr De Ruyter took.

Prof Mufamadi mentioned that he was assured by the Police Commissioner, during their conversation, that SAPS had made contact with Mr De Ruyter regarding the allegations.

Ms A Beukes (ANC) asked if he had said that he had not seen the intelligence report.

Prof Mufamadi confirmed that he had not seen the report.

Ms Beukes asked why he was part of the delegation with Minister Gordhan and what his role was.

Prof Mufamadi said that he received the invitation to the meeting from Minister Gordhan to provide advice, if necessary, on the findings in the report. He was unaware that Mr De Ruyter had requested Minister Gordhan to invite him to the meeting.

Ms Beukes asked him to confirm whether the invite had come from Minister Gordhan and not Mr De Ruyter.

Prof Mufamadi clarified that Mr De Ruyter alleged in his book that he had requested Minister Gordhan to invite him to the meeting.

Ms Beukes asked if Mr De Ruyter had made mention of who the donors for the investigation were.

Prof Mufamadi indicated that no reference was made to the identity of the donors during the meeting, and he only learned about who they were through the media after Mr De Ruyter’s appearance before the Committee.

Ms Beukes said she did not understand his response.

Prof Mufamadi clarified that he learned about the names through the media.

Ms Beukes asked what his personal view on the investigation and the intelligence report was. Furthermore, she asked why Mr De Ruyter had not made any mention of the identity of the donors.

Prof Mufamadi said that he could not provide an answer to the question and that the Committee would have to ask Mr De Ruyter in his next appearance before it.

Ms Beukes asked if he had assumed that the collective referred to by Mr De Ruyter was the Board at Eskom.

Prof Mufamadi denied that he made that assumption. Rather, he did not believe there was a necessity for him to know who the individuals were.

The Chairperson asked if he deemed the funding of a private investigation into the alleged wrongdoing at Eskom as acceptable and something not to be concerned about.

Prof Mufamadi explained that his duty was to advise the President on matters relating to national security, none of which he could repeat to the Committee.

The Chairperson asked if any documentation was circulated to the delegation present at the meeting with Mr De Ruyter.

Prof Mufamadi mentioned that Mr De Ruyter had presented a document to the delegation.

The Chairperson asked if the agenda of the meeting was specific in that matters relating to security would be discussed.

Prof Mufamadi affirmed that was correct.

The Chairperson asked if the names cited by the report were reported to the LEAs. Furthermore, he asked if the individuals mentioned were Ministers.

Prof Mufamadi said that one would expect those involved in the investigation to decide what steps should be taken on the findings contained in the report. As such, he preferred that those who instituted the investigations report the names to the relevant LEAs.

Ms V Mente (EFF) asked if he recalled who else was in attendance at the meeting with the former CEO of Eskom.

Prof Mufamadi said Mr De Ruyter, Mr Gordhan and his (Prof Mufamadi) advisor were present at the meeting.

Ms Mente asked if the Chairperson of the Board was invited to attend the meeting.

Prof Mufamadi explained that because he had no role in planning the meeting, he was unaware of who was invited to attend.

The Chairperson clarified that Prof Mufamadi had earlier said that he was invited to the meeting by the Minister, and not Mr De Ruyter.

Ms Mente asked if it was correct to say that the meeting was a once-off.

Prof Mufamadi confirmed that was the case.

Ms Mente asked what the purpose was of Mr De Ruyter providing the delegation present at the meeting the details contained in the report.

Prof Mufamadi stated that Eskom had access to the Presidency. Furthermore, he repeated that if there was hope for him to present the report to the President, it was not expressed. He was invited to the meeting by the Minister on the basis that he would advise him if required.

Ms Mente asked what advice did he give to both Minister Gordhan and Mr De Ruyter on what action should be taken on the names involved in the wrongdoing at Eskom.

Prof Mufamadi corrected her and said the individuals' names were alleged to be involved. The only advice he gave was that Mr De Ruyter should report the alleged criminality to the LEAs.

Ms Mente asked for clarity on whether Prof Mufamadi’s earlier reference to a various number of reports validated the fact that he did not know which report Mr De Ruyter was speaking to during the briefing.

Prof Mufamadi highlighted that when he made that reference it was in relation to the intelligence reports mentioned by the President in the SONA, and he did not know which one he was referring to.

Ms Mente asked if Mr De Ruyter said what intelligence report he was referring to during the briefing.

Prof Mufamadi repeated that Mr De Ruyter mentioned that ‘we’ commissioned the report. Further to that, he mentioned that he did not have to know which individuals were associated with the compilation of the report, but rather the issues that were under investigation.

Ms Mente asked if Mr De Ruyter had shared with Prof Mufamadi that he had already met with the National Commissioner and that investigations were underway.

Prof Mufamadi reminded her that he had earlier said that the National Commissioner, during a conversation between the two, stated that he had been in contact with Mr De Ruyter. Following that, he (Prof Mufamadi) reiterated the Presidency’s commitment to providing LEAs with support, when required.

Mr S Somyo (ANC) asked if Prof Mufamadi had mostly been preoccupied with issues facing Eskom during his time as the National Security Advisor (NSA).

Prof Mufamadi confirmed that was the case.

Mr Somyo explained that it would be so because of the threat posed by load shedding to the security of the country.

Prof Mufamadi agreed.

Mr Somyo asked how many times Prof Mufamadi had met with Mr De Ruyter.

Prof Mufamadi indicated that his sole task was to advise the President on issues, both domestic and international, affecting national security. As such, there was no expectation from the President for him to meet with officials across government and state-owned enterprises (SOE). Nonetheless, he underlined that prior to that meeting he had only seen Mr De Ruyter at briefings in Parliament.

Mr Somyo asked if he regarded all briefings he received as ones pertaining to intelligence-related matters.

Prof Mufamadi denied that he took that approach. Instead, he took each matter on a case-by-case basis.

Mr Somyo asked if he determined whether a report was intelligence-related or not.

Prof Mufamadi said that he usually provides a report to the LEAs for verification.

Mr Somyo asked if he considered the report cited during Mr De Ruyter’s briefing as being intelligence-related.

Prof Mufamadi said that his task was to advise that the LEAs be provided with the report to verify its status.

Mr Somyo asked if the Cabinet resolution in 2013 for certain individuals in the state bureaucracy to be vetted was being followed, and if not, what he thought should be done to carry it out.

Prof Mufamadi said that the Panel, established in 2018, which he was part of, identified and recommended certain shortcomings that needed to be addressed at the State Security Agency (SSA). The National Security Council (NSC) noted that the President adopted the reports produced by the Panel, with their recommendations. Periodic reporting is done by the Council on the implementation of each recommendation. Furthermore, he requested that the Committee follow up with the Council on this.

Mr Somyo asked if Mr De Ruyter, during the briefing, had also informed the delegation that he did not trust the SAPS.

Prof Mufamadi denied that he had made mention of this.

Mr Somyo asked if he was aware that Mr De Ruyter had been vetted.

Prof Mufamadi said he was unaware because such matters were not reported to him as the person of first instance.

Mr Somyo indicated that Mr De Ruyter confirmed that he was not vetted in his book. When Minister Gordhan was asked the same question (on if he was aware if Mr De Ruyter had been vetted or not) he highlighted that Mr De Ruyter expressed that he could not provide his financial information to the SSA. He asked if Prof Mufamadi had heard about this statement.

Prof Mufamadi said that he had not as such issues were not reported to him.

Mr Somyo asked what his opinion was on the failure of the SSA to vet Mr De Ruyter.

Prof Mufamadi mentioned that the implementation of recommendations to correct the vetting challenges at the SSA was underway within the NSC. He believed that the work will assist going forward.

Mr Somyo asked if Mr De Ruyter ever made reference to who was involved in the investigations into the alleged wrongdoing at Eskom.

Prof Mufamadi indicated that Mr De Ruyter had made reference to the involvement of a certain company.

Thereafter, he requested that Members not ask whether he had taken interest in following up on who was involved in the investigations, as he was not comfortable sharing it on the platform.

Mr Somyo acceded to his request. Following that, he asked for Prof Mufamadi’s thoughts on the investigation being funded privately, and without security clearance, as well as the allegations that Eskom, during Mr De Ruyter’s tenure, had procured security amounting to R550 million.

Prof Mufamadi said that he could only provide such advice to the President.

Mr Somyo asked if Mr De Ruyter had informed Prof Mufamadi that he would be securing security personnel, due to the possible retaliation by those implicated in the report against him and other officials at Eskom.

Prof Mufamadi said that Mr De Ruyter did not. Instead, he heard many of the details through the media.

Mr Somyo asked if it was wise to utilise private intelligence sources to commission such a report.

Prof Mufamadi highlighted that the panel appointed to investigate the July 2021 unrest recommended collaborations in investigations between state security and private entities. However, he believed that collaboration should depend on the strategic importance of each matter.

Mr Somyo asked if there was legislation governing the utilisation of private intelligence entities for such investigations.

Prof Mufamadi stated that he was unsure whether discussions on such legislation were underway. Nevertheless, he felt that many lessons could be learned from previous collaborations on how to best conduct investigations of wrongdoing at SOEs.

Mr Somyo asked how the involvement of private intelligence entities conducting investigations on behalf of the state would assist in capacitating the investigative units in government departments and SOEs.

Prof Mufamadi said that corrective measures have been taken by the state to better capacitate the LEAs, following years of State Capture, such as increasing the number of SAPS and crime intelligence personnel. Despite that, there was still room for further improvement, he stressed.

He was unsure of the reasons why Mr De Ruyter did not trust the SAPS.

Mr Somyo asked if the SAPS began investigating the alleged wrongdoing at Eskom prior to or following the conclusion of the intelligence report.

Prof Mufamadi explained that the allegations of criminality at the power stations in Mpumalanga were underway prior to the conclusion of the intelligence report.

Mr A Lees (DA) expressed his appreciation for the answers provided by Prof Mufamadi to the questions posed by Members.

Prof Mufamadi thanked him for his remarks.

Mr Hadebe asked if it was appropriate for Mr De Ruyter to only brief the delegation at the meeting on the information contained in the report and not provide the document to them as well. Moreover, he asked if the report was handed over to the Minister.

Prof Mufamadi remarked that he had viewed himself as an outsider to the matter, as the former CEO reported to the Minister, who is the executive authority. In addition, he was not certain if the Minister had been briefed by Mr De Ruyter prior to the meeting on the report.

Mr Hadebe highlighted that he was trying to understand whether Prof Mufamadi believed it was usual protocol for the accounting officer to furnish the executive authority with the report.

Prof Mufamadi agreed but added that he did not know what recommendations Mr De Ruyter had made to Minister Gordhan. Further to that, he said contrary to what is widely believed, Ministers did not usually receive detailed reports and decide whether those implicated should be prosecuted or not.

The Chairperson asked in what capacity and purpose Prof Mufamadi was invited to the meeting.

Prof Mufamadi mentioned that he was invited in his capacity as the NSA to provide advice to Minister Gordhan on what steps should be taken following the briefing.

The Chairperson asked him to clarify if he attended the meeting in his capacity as the NSA to the President.

Prof Mufamadi said that while he was the NSA for the President, nothing prevented him from providing advice to other Ministers.

The Chairperson expressed his concerns regarding the fact that Prof Mufamadi, as the NSA for the President, decided not to follow up on the allegations of involvement of high-ranking politicians in the wrongdoing taking place at Eskom, especially the President’s revelations of sabotage at the power utility.

Prof Mufamadi said that the remarks made by the President showed the seriousness of the problems faced by the power utility. Moreover, he added that neither he nor the LEAs could not take allegations to the President without concluding their investigations.

The Chairperson asked what steps Prof Mufamadi had taken to follow up on the allegations. In addition, he asked if sufficient progress had been made in addressing the allegations.

Prof Mufamadi indicated that he was following the Committee’s hearings with the Special Investigating Unit and other LEAs. He stressed that it was not his job for him to follow up on the progress of the investigations.

The Chairperson asked Prof Mufamadi to confirm that Mr De Ruyter was advised by himself and Minister Gordhan to report the allegations to the LEAs.

Prof Mufamadi confirmed that was what he had said.

The Chairperson asked if Mr De Ruyter had presented the final report or a preliminary one.

Prof Mufamadi clarified that Mr De Ruyter did not state whether it was a preliminary or final report.

The Chairperson highlighted that it seemed as if Mr De Ruyter was the only individual with the report.

Mr Somyo asked if Prof Mufamadi had requested Mr De Ruyter to provide him with the report.

Prof Mufamadi indicated he had not.

Mr Somyo asked if that was because he had been briefed by Mr De Ruyter.

Prof Mufamadi confirmed that was the case. He then asked Mr Somyo what he could have done with the findings.

Mr Somyo said that he might have been interested in the findings because matters affecting Eskom posed risks to national security.

Prof Mufamadi said that he did not require the report to make a judgement on what steps should be taken by Mr De Ruyter.

Mr Somyo asked if Prof Mufamadi felt that the report was not necessary for him to carry out his work.

Prof Mufamadi denied this and explained that he was called to the meeting to provide the Minister with advice if needed, and as such, he could not then make a request to be furnished with the report.

Mr Somyo said that he took it that the report was not in Prof Mufamadi's interest.

Prof Mufamadi denied this assertion.

Mr Somyo explained that he was surprised that Prof Mufamadi had not, after hearing the serious allegations contained in the report, asked Mr De Ruyter to provide him a copy of the report.

Prof Mufamadi said he did not agree with Mr Somyo’s conclusion. He added that during the meeting he had assumed that Minister Gordhan was the appropriate authority to be given the report. Such matters usually found their way to the President’s desk, with or without his input.

Mr Hadebe asked if it was correct to state that those responsible for making the follow-ups on the progress of the investigations were the Board and the former and current CEOs of Eskom.

Prof Mufamadi suggested that either the Portfolio Committee on Justice or SCOPA have the authority to interact with the National Prosecuting Authority.

Mr Hadebe asked, in line with the statutory obligations, who the relevant and appropriate authorities that the Committee should follow up with on the progress of the investigations.

Prof Mufamadi asked if the Committee has a statutory obligation to inquire about the progress of an investigation.

Mr Hadebe explained that SCOPA’s mandate was to provide oversight on issues pertaining to corruption, malfeasance, and mismanagement of public funds.

Prof Mufamadi said that if the Committee cannot get progress updates from the relevant LEAs, it should look to have bilateral meetings with other Portfolio Committees.

The Chairperson asked if further steps, besides advising Mr De Ruyter to take the allegations to the requisite LEAs, could have been taken by Prof Mufamadi and Minister Gordhan to deal with some of the findings in the report.

Prof Mufamadi said that due process had to take its course, no matter who was alleged to be involved.

The Chairperson asked if progress had been made on investigating the allegations.

Prof Mufamadi wondered if the LEAs who appeared before the Committee previously would have provided more detail on the progress of the investigations in a closed meeting. He advised the Committee to consider conducting some of the hearings concerning sensitive information behind closed doors.

The Chairperson thanked Prof Mufamdi for clarifying certain matters for the Committee, as there have been several gaps in the testimonies provided thus far.

He proposed that the Parliamentary Legal Advisors write to Mr De Ruyter requesting him to submit the report to the Committee because without it certain points will not be fully uncovered. Furthermore, he asked for the Members to submit a list of individuals they want brought before the Committee, as part of the hearings into Eskom.

The meeting was adjourned.

Audio

No related

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: